Skip to main content
1:00 pm
i'm sure that argument will be made. >> the senator from illinois wish -- >> that's exactly the point. the senator knows having attended law school and professes to have some experience in the constitution, none of these rights are absolute. none of them. and the heller decision goes specifically to the question of this amendment and tells us when they were asked in the heller decision, a panel -- heller 2, a panel of republican appointed judges rejected a second amendment challenge to d.c.'s assault weapon ban and magazine limits, the second amendment challenge. the d.c. circuit court held that such laws, quote, do not disarm
1:01 pm
1:15. up until then from this morning's "washington journal," senator sanders from vermont. host: senator bernie sanders, senator from vermont, here. thank you for being here. you served on the budget committee. we saw senator patty murray, the chairman, introduce her budget plan. here's the headline in "the washington times" -- there are no sacred cows that calls for $1 trillion in new taxes. what's your takeaway? guest: well, what it does is also call for substantial cuts, but it deals with deficit
1:02 pm
reduction in a balanced way. what the republicans want to do is do deficit reduction simply by cutting, cutting, cutting. doing away with medicare as we know it. right now converting that into a voucher system which we very, very onerous for senior citizens, making devastating cuts in medicaid which means that millions of millions of american people and kids will lose their health insurance. massive cuts in education, in nutrition. basically every program that in the middle of a terrible recession working people depend upon would be done away with. what my view is -- i think the senate agrees what the committee is moving toward is to say, wait a second, we are seeing a middle class collapse, poverty at a high rate while the wealthiest and corporations are doing extraordinarily well. we are looking at record breaking profits for
1:03 pm
corporations and yet their effective tax rate is the lowest since 1972. and we have one out of four major corporations in had country not paying a nickel in taxes. so the issue that we have to deal with is do we really want to cut social security, medicare and medicaid, education, head start or do we want to ask the wealthiest people and the largest corporations to start paying their fair share of taxes? so what i think the murray budget is about is raising revenue. there are substantial cuts in it. also, by the way, when real unemployment in this country is not 7.7% but over 14%, when for young people the unemployment rate is even higher than that. we are putting about $100 billion into helping to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, our roads, bridges, water systems to put people back to work. so the point that i would make is that while certainly we have to concentrate on deficit
1:04 pm
reduction, we also have to create millions and millions of jobs in this country and put our people back to work. host: so would you vote for senator murray's budget plans right now? does it go far enough for you? guest: it doesn't go as far as i'd like. when we have in this country the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any country on earth and worse today there has been in any time since before the great depression of 1929 -- let me just give you one example, if i might. today, the top 1%, wealthiest 1% in this country own 38% of the wealth. you know what the bottom 60% are? very few people do. 2.3%. 2.3% for the bottom 60%, top 1% owns 38%. one family in this country, the walton family of wal-mart, owns more than the bottom 1/4. the last study done on the subject from 2009 to 2011
1:05 pm
showed that 100% of all of the new income that was developed in this country went to the top 1%. bottom 99% lost. median family income going down. so when you have that inequality, when you have the middle class shrinking, large corporations enjoying record breaking profit. i think you have to ask them to play a role in deficit reduction, no go after the elderly, the sick, the poor. host: "the new york times" shows the latest republican and democrat budget on the table. guest: look, we have, as i mentioned today, real unemployment including those people who've given up looking
1:06 pm
for work and those people working part time, it's over 14%. it is horrendous. people of color, the young people the numbers are even higher. we have got to put our people back to work. focusing on deficit reduction is very important, but creating the millions of jobs that our economy desperately needs is even more important. i would go further than that. everybody -- i could tell you in the state of vermont and i suspect in the other 49 states, we have a serious problem with roads and bridges and water systems and schools, broadband. we need to invest in our infrastructure to make this country more productive. when you do that you create jobs. so i am a big fan of investing in the infrastructure and strongly supportive of that proposal. i would have gone higher. host: you can see here in wall street "washington journal," republican plan and blue plan in -- for the democrats.
1:07 pm
you can see that there. guest: that's the real issue. do you really think that the only way we can move to deficit reduction is cut, cut, cut? when revenue at 18.2%, the lowest in 60 years, i think there needs to be a balanced approach and we need to close outrageous loopholes that corporations enjoy. host: talking to bernie sanders, independent in vermont. folks are eager to talk to you. let's go to edward in grand prairie, texas. democrats line. hi, edward, how you doing? caller: ok. i wanted to -- representative sanders, senator sanders, my concern is that you guys are being easy on the republicans about raising tax. the democrats not raising tax.
1:08 pm
all they're trying to do is get rid of the welfare program called subsidies. you guys don't emphasize the fact that we're subsidizing these corporations. and we talk about the 1%. we're not raising their tax. we're just trying to get them to pay their share of their taxes like every other citizen. and when we talk about corporations not paying any tax, we are saying that we're not raising their tax, we're trying to get them to pay tax like other organizations. you know, one thing -- and looking at the programs is that we talked about how income has decreased. the reason is because you had many of those people who voted for republicans doing the -- reagan administration and during the johnson administration that kill the union which at the time was about 35% of the citizenship.
1:09 pm
now it's 6% and over that period of time the work has decreased while the corporations have increased. and this is -- i don't understand why you guys are being nice to these republicans. guest: edward, thank you. i think my republican colleagues would probably disagree with you as to how nice i've been to them. you make several good points. first of all, when we talk about the decline of the middle class, median family income going down, most of the new jobs created in this country are low-wage jobs. the gap between the wealthy and everybody else is growing wider. there are a couple of factors involved. trade union is certainly one of those reasons. we used to have far greater representation. so workers could sit down and collectively negotiate a contract to get a decent wage. we've lost millions and millions of decent union jobs. and the second issue, though, has to do with our disastrous
1:10 pm
trade policies. and i voted against all of these things, from nafta to permanent normal trade relations with china. congress, at the behest of large corporations said we'll open up our markets. but the truth is in the last 10 years or so we have lost some 50,000 factories in this country. many of them going to china or low-wage countries. and those trade policies would say to corporations, you can throw american workers out on the street, move to china, bring your products back in this country, be disastrous for the american worker. in terms of tax policy, let me tell you this because i've been working on this issue for a while, we have been losing every year about $100 billion in revenue because large corporations, whether it is the bank of america, citigroup, exxonmobil, many of these large corporations are stashing their
1:11 pm
profits in the cayman islands. front page story in "the wall street journal" about that i think last week. what we have got to do is end these loopholes with these large corporations many of whom, by the way, if they're young corporations, bailed them out. congress bailed them out when their recklessness almost destroyed the economy. they needed help of the american people. when it comes to paying taxes, they prefer to put their money in the cayman islands. that's an issue that has to be addressed. right now at 12% of profits, corporations are paying the lowest effective corporate tax rate since 1972. so this is an issue that we need to address. host: senator mcconnell, leader of the republicans, talking about the democratic budget plan. this was before it was unveiled officially and here's his feedback on it.
1:12 pm
>> we hear it contains yet more wasteful, quote, stimulus spending, spending that turns out to be a lot more effective at generating jokes for late night comedians than jobs. and in order to finance more spending we hear it relies on more than $1 trillion. that's a trillion with a t in new taxes. including on the middle class. remember, washington and democrats got more than $600 billion in taxes this year, so where's this new revenue going to come from, charities, the home mortgage interest deduction? will they go after families and small businesses yet again? at least there's one thing we
1:13 pm
most certainly know. their budget will never balance. not today, not tomorrow, not ever. host: senator mcconnell. senator sanders, what's your response? guest: well, he's wrong in every instance. the first point actually is what we've done in the budget committee is have made cuts in health programs including medicare but we do it without cutting benefits. here's how we do it. by the way, the budget committee is the committee that comes up with the blueprint. it is the finance committee, the appropriations committee that go more into details. here's what mitch mcconnell doesn't appreciate. his friend in the house, congressman ryan, ends medicare as we know it and turns it into a voucher program. and that means that if you are 64, 66, 67, government gives you an inadequate check and say
1:14 pm
go after the private insurance companies. you got your health care. if you have cancer, if you have diabetes, if you have a serious health problem, what kind of health care do you think you're going to get when you're 67 years old when you have an inadequate check? that's their plan. then they want to make massive cuts in medicaid. now, what we have said is at a time when in the united states we are spending almost twice as much per capita on health care -- this is not just medicare but all of our health care systems, and in many ways our outcomes are not as good as other countries, of course we can make the health care system more efficient. one of the things you could do in medicare is against republican opposition is demand that medicare negotiate prescription drugs with the pharmaceutical industry. we can save very substantial moneys. put more money into primary care so people don't have to go into an emergency room at 10 times the cost of going to a primary care physician. so there are a lot of things
1:15 pm
you can do to save money without cutting benefits. they decimate medicare and medicaid. second point, he talks about stimulus. yeah, let me be very clear. when the infrastructure of this country is collapsing, in vermont and all over this nation we need to put huge amounts of money in rebuilding bridges, many of which are unsafe, our roads, our rail systems, and when we can create jobs, yeah, i think that's exactly the right thing to do. and he talks about raising taxes. what we are talking about is ending loopholes. maybe mitch mcconnell thinks it's a good idea that companies like the bank of america can put their profits into the cayman islands and go to a year in 2010 where this usually profitable corporation doesn't pay a nickel in taxes, if mitch mcconnell thinks that's a good public policy, i strongly disagree with him. i think what you're seeing is a big philosophical divide. in my view, in this instance, the republicans are standing
1:16 pm
with these large corporations, one out of four of them are not paying a nickel in taxes and we think, hey, before you cut social security, medicare, medicaid, education, we are going to ask these guys to start paying your fair share. host: in the excerpt senator mcconnell talked about balancing the budget and a couple questions came in from twitter related to that. sandy beach wants to know, ryan's budget, kongman ryan's budget balances in 10 years. -- congressman ryan's budget balances in 10 years. when does yours. and another asks, explain why deficits don't matter. guest: deficits do matter and let's talk about how we got to where we are right now. when clinton left office in 2000 and bush took over, this country had a $236 billion surplus. and then what happened in the next few years under bush is we went to war in iraq and afghanistan. you know how we paid for those wars, we didn't pay for it at
1:17 pm
all. we gave huge tax breaks for the wealthy. we passed the medicare part d prescription drug program unpaid for. because wall street was deregulated and when i was in the house, i tell you, libby, i fought that very, very hard. they got deregulated and they came up with -- >> all of senator sanders in our video library at president obama is on capitol hill meeting with senate republicans at this hour and house democrats later. here's a look at the president as he arrived on capitol hill a short while ago. >> good to see you, sir. thank you so much. i appreciate. that's what i would expect out of our maine senator, bragging a little bit. >> yeah.
1:18 pm
>> thank you. >> the president with senate republicans and meeting with house democrats in about an hour or so. here on c-span we are going to take you live now to the conservative political action conference happening in washington. first speaker up this afternoon, senator marco rubio of florida. >> i believe that more today than i did just three years ago. and we have to do something about it. that's what we're here to talk about today. now what i sense from a lot of people i've been talking to is this fear that somehow america has changed, our people has changed, that we reached this point in time and we have too many people in america that want too much from government and that maybe the changes that have happened are irreversible and that it will never be the same again. i want you to understand that's not true. our people have not changed. the vast majority of the american people are hardworking taxpayers who take responsibility for their families, go to work every day.
1:19 pm
they pay their mortgage on time. they volunteer in the community. this is what the vast majority of american people still are. what's changed is the world around us. it's changed in dramatic ways. just think how much the world has changed in the last 10 years. the global economy is real. we don't live in a national economy any more. everything you buy, everything you sell, everything you touch it's all impacted by things that are happening halfway around the world. the information age is real. it's made our lives easier. it's allowed you right now to take pictures with your phones and tweet every word i say for or against me. [laughter] it's changed the world and it's made our life easier. it's also changed our economy. you go into a grocery store today and you find machines doing the jobs that people once used to do. you find one person, because of automation, can do the work that five people used to do. it's the world around us that's change. and this is having an impact on our people. on our hardworking people.
1:20 pm
many have seen the jobs wiped out. jobs they've been doing for 20 years disappeared overnight. many of them -- many of them to things the right way. for example, they pay their mortgages on time. and now when the housing bubble came they were stuck with a bill for bailing out the banks that caused it, for bailing out the people who took out mortgages they couldn't afford to pay. everywhere they looked they see trouble around them. they look to washington, d.c., as if they don't have enough troubles to begin with, every week washington's creating some sort of manmade crisis to worry about. and they look at the political process whether it's fair or not and what many of them see they think one side is fighting for the people that made it and all the other side does is fight for government policies to protect the people who are struggling. and they don't want to take anything away from anybody, the vast majority of americans and the hardworking middle class. they don't want to take away from people that made it.
1:21 pm
they don't want to hurt the people that are trying. but they're wondering who's fighting for them. who's fighting for the hardworking everyday people of this country who do things right and do not complain, that have built this nation and have made it exceptional? as conservative believers in limited government and free enterprise, that is both our challenge and our opportunity, to be their voice. and by the way, i can't think of a better call because our hardworking middle class is one of the things that makes america different and special from the rest of the world. every country in the world has rich people. unfortunately every country in the world has poor people, but few have the kind of vibrant wide spred middle class that america does, a widespread middle class that everyone said should have an equal opportunity to be part of the middle class or even better. it sets us apart from the world. and in that light you hear all this debate about fighting amongst conservatives and people who believe in limited government, that's a foolish
1:22 pm
notion. people who agree on all sorts of things work together all the time on things they do agree on. and there has to be a home and a movement in america for people who believe in limited government, constitutional principles and a free enterprise system and that should be us. [applause] now, in order to work together with people you disagree with, there has to be mutual respect. that means i respect people who disagree with me on certain things but they must respect me too. just because i believe states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot. just because -- [applause] just because we believe that life, all human life is worthy of protection on every stage of its development does not make you a -- [applause] in fact, the people who are
1:23 pm
actually closed-minded in american politics are the people who love to preach about the certainty of science when regard to our climate but ignore the absolute fact that science has proven that life begins at conception. [applause] and so our challenge is to create an agenda, applying our principles, our principles that still work, applying our time to the challenges of today. and what is an agenda like that look like? well, i think government has three things it can do to help. a limited government has three things it can do to help. the first is they can make america the best place in the world to create middle-class jobs. that's why we need, for example, to engage in the global economy through fair trade. we also need to engage in the world. if we're living in a global economy, america must be wise in how it uses the global influence. we can't solve every war. we can't be involved in every armed conflict. we also can't be retreating
1:24 pm
from the world. and so that balance is critically important for us to strike because we live in a global economy. beyond that we need to have pro-growth energy policies, including oil and natural gas. our regulation, our regulations have to be the product of a cost-benefit analysis. the government is trying to help the business community. in america business fields like government is their impediment, their competitor, their enemy. that has to stop. our monetary policy cannot be used to i flat things and distort our economy. the list goes on and on. we know about tax policy. we need to have a pro-growth tax structure, not one that takes from some and gives to others. and last but not least, we believe in solving our debt problem, because it's hurting job creation. jobs are not being created in america. there are jobs that are not being created in this country because we have a $16.5
1:25 pm
trillion debt and it's only scheduled to get bigger. that problem has to be solved and you can only solve it, the only real approach that solves it is the combination of fiscal discipline and rapid economic combrothe. there is no tax increase in the world that will solve our long-term debt problem. the second thing that our government can help us do is help ourselves by acquiring the skills of the 21st century and that's why i think every parent in america should have the opportunity to send their children to the school of their choice. by the way, we should encourage career education. not everyone has to go to a four-year liberal arts college. we still need plumbers. we still need carpenters. why aren't we graduating more kids with an industry certification in a career, a real middle-class career?
1:26 pm
and last but not least, because i'm running out of time, last but not least, do not underestimate -- i know this movement does not -- the impact of the breakdown of the american family is having on our people and their long-term future. now, government's role in solving that slimented. we have to talk about it for sure. government's role in solving this is limited. but ultimately we should recognize we do have obligations to each other. in addition to our individual rights, our individual responsibilities to each other, but not through government. through community. through our churches and through our neighborhoods. as parents and neighbors and friends. those are the best ways in which we can serve our fellow americans, through volunteer organizations where every single american through every walks of life can literally change life, one neighbor at a time. last but not least, the cost of living is real. that's why we need health care reform, but not a health care reform that injects the federal government in a takeover of the
1:27 pm
world's highest quality health care industry but a health care reform that empowers americans so they can buy health insurance from any company in america that's willing to sell it to them. my last point. my last point on cost of living and you'll hear a lot more about this. you should be concerned about student loan debt. it's the next big bubble in america. i know something about it. i graduated with over $100,000 in student loans. and i paid it off last year with the proceeds of my book which is available on amazon for $12.99 -- [laughter] anyway, we have -- and let me tell you who that really hurts. student loans, you know who that hurts? it hurts the middle class because many of them, their parents make a little bit too much to qualify for grants and they have to rely on student loans. there are all kinds of innovative ideas whether it's self-directive learning, whether it's empowering people with more information so they know how much they can expect
1:28 pm
to make if they earn a certain degree and how much they have to owe. it's a major problem for our future and a major problem for the american middle class. my time is up so let me close. couple things. if you look at our government you have a right to be pessimistic but here's the good news, our government has never been america. america has never been our government. america has never been our politicians. america has always been our people. with all the bad news out there you can still find the tremendous promise of tomorrow in the everyday stories of our people. let me tell you one story. there's this couple i know. they are on my son's tackle football team. he's 7 years old. he's 8 years old. this couple is married. she works as a receptionist at a medical office. he loads boxes from trucks at a warehouse. i don't have to tell you they're struggling. they live in a little small apartment. they share one car. they want -- they're not
1:29 pm
freeloaders. they're not liberals. [applause] they're not -- they're just everyday people that want what everybody else wants. they want a better life. they want a better life for themselves and even better life for their children. and they're desperate. sometimes when you're like that -- let me tell you no matter how much your principles may be, you're susceptible to this argument that maybe government is the only thing that can help and that's where we have to come in and explain that's not true. the first thing they really need is an economy, a vast and vibrant economy that's creating the kind of middle-class jobs that will allow them to get for themselves that better future. the next thing they need is the skills for those jobs. there are three million jobs available in america that are not filled because too many of our people don't have the skills for those jobs. that's what they -- they need skills for those jobs so instead of being a receptionist she can be an ultrasound tech.
1:30 pm
instead of loading boxes from a truck he can be fixing those trucks. and the third thing they need is a place where their cost of living is affordable, where their increased paycheck isn't -- let me tell you what the stakes are. the stakes are not just americans. the stakes are bigger than that. thank you. never in the history of the world has water been so popular. i appreciate it. let me tell you -- i'll close by telling you what i think is at stake. as you know yesterday there was a transition in the government of china. they have a new president. this new leader loves giving speeches where he refers to the china dream. what's the china dream? what does that mean? the china dream is a book, a book that was written by -- i think it was a colonel, a chinese army colonel. let me tell you what the gist of the book is. i'll save you the time of
1:31 pm
reading it. that china's goals should be to surpass the united states as the world's preeminent, world economic power. in the forward, the 21st century should be a race to see who can become the champion country to lead world progress. so while we are here bickering in this country and arguing about whether we should spend more than we take in or what government's role should be, there is a nation trying to sue plant us as the lead -- supplant us as the leader in the world. we're tired of solving the world's problems. believe me, i understand. i do. it's frustrating. but let me explain something. let me explain to you the chinese government is. the chinese government provides their people no access to internet. they'll hold prisoners with no right for recourse. the chinese government coerces people until they get
1:32 pm
confessions from them. the chinese government restricts the ability of people to assemble. if you escape china, they force people to return you. they have birth limitation policies which means in some cases they're forcing abortions and sterilizations. the chinese government uses forced labor. and this is what they do to their own people. we want that to be the leading country in the world? we want that to be the leading voice on this planet? that's the stakes. that's what's at stake in america's greatness. this is not just about national pride. the truth of the matter is don't take this for granted. what we have here is different and special and historic. in the vast history of the world and of mankind, almost everyone that's been born is poor and disadvantaged with no ability to get ahead. what's made us different is here people have had the real chance to get a better life no matter where they started out. and do not underestimate what
1:33 pm
that has meant for the word. now as soon as i'm done speaking, i'll tell you the criticism on the left will be. number one, he drank too much water. number two, he didn't offer any new ideas. there's the fall is i of it. we don't -- fallacy of it. we don't need it. we have an idea and it's called america and it still works. [applause] you want proof it still works? you want proof it still works? look around the world today. who are they copying? they're not copying the former soviet union. they're not copying russia. they are not copying china. they are copying us. with every step towards free enterprise, millions of people around the world are emerging from poverty.
1:34 pm
millions of people around the world are emerging from generational poverty because they were inspired by the american idea. they may claim to hate us but they sure would like to be us. and the question is in the world we leave our children, what will be the dominant country in the world? what will be the light shining example of the world? a country like the one i described to you in china or in other places or a country like ours, that is what is at stake. i believe in my heart what i've always believed. that if we give our people the opportunity at free enterprise and upward mobility, they'll do what they've always done. they'll build and sustain a vibrant middle class and beyond. that if we give our children the skills they need for the 21st century, they'll do what americans have always done, they'll change the world for the better. if we do what we're supposed to be, we will be who we're
1:35 pm
destined to be, the single greatest nation in the history of the world. thank you very much. thank you. [applause] >> so who here stands with rand? i thought so. well, we're certainly honored to have him head our college conference last summer. i know he electrified freedom-loving americans with the recent filibuster. rand paul is a junior united states senator from kentucky. elected in 2010, he's proven to
1:36 pm
be an outspoken champion for fiscal responsibility. he's obviously a lawyer against government overreach. without further ado, please welcome rand paul. [applause] >> now, i was told i got 10 measly minutes. [laughter] but just in case i bought 13 hours worth of -- [applause] i also came with the message, a message for the president, a message that is loud and clear,
1:37 pm
a message that doesn't minutes words. -- that doesn't mince words. that's not exactly what i was thinking. however, i think he may have distilled my 13-hour speech into three words. the message for the president is that no one person gets to decide the law. no one person gets to decide your guilt or innocence. my question -- my question for the president is not more than just about killing americans on american soil. my question was about whether presidential power has limits. lincoln put it well when he wrote, "nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man, give him power."
1:38 pm
president obama, who seemed once upon a time to respect civil liberties, has become the president who signed the law allowing for indefinite detention of an american citizen. indeed, a law that allows an american citizen to be sent to guantanamo bay without a trial. now, president obama defends his signing of this bill by stating that he has no intention of detaining an american citizen without a trial. likewise, he defended possible targeted drone strikes on americans by indicating that he had no intention of doing so. well, my 13-hour filibuster was a message to the president. good intentions are not enough. the oath of office states, "i
1:39 pm
will protect, preserve and defend the constitution." it doesn't say, "well, i intend to when it's convenient." mr. president, good intentions are not enough. we want to know, will you or won't you defend the constitution? eisenhower wrote, "how far can you go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?" if we destroy our enemy but lose what defines our freedom in the process, have we really won? if we allow one man to charge americans as enemy combatants and indefinitely detain our drone them, then what exactly is it that our brave young men and women are fighting for? [applause]
1:40 pm
one wrote, "there can be no liberty if you can bind the executive and the legislative branches." likewise, there can be no justice if you combine the executive and the judicial branch. we separated arrest from accusation and trial and verdict for a reason. when lewis carroll's wife queen shouts, "sentence first, verdict afterwards," the reader's response is supposed to be, but that would be absurd. in our country the police can arrest but only your peers can convict. we prize our bill of rights like no other country. our bill of rights is what defines us. it's what makes us exceptional.
1:41 pm
[applause] to those who would dismiss this debate as priff luss, i say -- frivolous, tell that to the young men and women who sacrifice their limbs and lives. tell that to the 6,000 parents of kids who died as american soldiers in iraq and afghanistan. tell them the bill of rights is no big deal. [applause] tell it to sergeant j.d. williams, who's one of my neighbors. he lives in auburn, kentucky, a few miles from me. he sacrificed himself to save his fellow soldiers. tell j.d. who lost both legs and an arm, tell him his sacrifice was great but we had to suspend the bill of rights he fought for. i don't think so.
1:42 pm
[applause] the filibuster was about drones but also about much more. do we have a bill of rights? do we have a constitution? and will we defend it? in his farewell speech in 1989, reagan said, as government expands, liberty contracts. he -- 1979, reagan said, as government expands, liberty contracts. he was right. as government grows, liberty becomes marginalized. the collective takes precedent over the individual. freedom shrinks. and our government today is larger than it has ever been in our history. everything that america has been, everything that we wish to be is now threatened by the notion that you can have something for nothing, that you can have your cake and eat it
1:43 pm
too, that you can spend $1 trillion every year that you don't have. the president seems to think we can keep adding to a $16 trillion debt. the president seems to think that the country can continue to borrow $50,000 a second. the president just believes we just need to squeeze more money out of those who are working. he's got it exactly backwards. [applause] i'm here to tell you that what we need to do is keep more money in the pockets of those who earned it. [applause] look at how ridiculous washington politicians have behaved over this sequester. the president said over $1 trillion sequester that he endorsed and he signed into
1:44 pm
law. some republicans joined him. but the sequester didn't even cut any spending. it just slows the rate of growth of government. even with the sequester, the federal government will grow over $7 trillion over the next decade. only in washington can a $7 trillion increase in spending be called a cut. [applause] now, the president is trying to step up. he's trying to do his fair share. after the sequester was announced he said he's going to stop the white house tours for schoolchildren. they had to do this because these cuts were imposed by the sequester. but meanwhile, within a few days the president finds and extra $250 million to send to egypt.
1:45 pm
[booing] you know the country where mobs attacked our embassy, burned our flag and chanted "death to america," he found an extra there are 250 million to reward them. you know, whose country where the president stood by the leader who called "death to israel and all who support her." i say not one penny more to countries that are burning our flag. [applause] but i do want to help the president. i have a few suggestions for him. i'm sorry i couldn't have lunch with him today. [laughter] maybe he'll be able to see this later on c-span.
1:46 pm
so when i asked the president if he wants to let the schoolchildren back in the white house, what about the $3 million that we spend studying monkeys on meth? does it really take $3 million to discover that monkeys, like humans, act crazy on meth? mr. president, what about the $300,000 for robotic squirrel? now, they wanted to study whether a squirrel that doesn't wag its tail, whether it will be bitten by a rattlesnake. only problem, they couldn't find a real squirrel to volunteer not to wag its tail. but i can tell you the bottom line for the $300,000 question, a rattlesnake will bite the you know what out of a squirrel not wagging its tail. mr. president, maybe we could
1:47 pm
have cut the robotic squirrel before we went to white house tours. now, for any of you college students looking for jobs, uncle sam's got a job for you. it pays $5,000, all expenses paid, the study is in hawaii but the requirements are onerous. only a few could qualify. you have to like food. the study is to develop a menu for when we colonize mars. i'm not making this up. guess what a bunch of college students came up for the menu? pizza. [applause] you could cut one of these programs and return to letting the schoolchildren come to the white house. this government's completely out of control. we desperately need a new course and new leadership.
1:48 pm
[applause] the path forward for the republican party is rooted in the respect for the constitution and respect for the individual. part of that respect is allowing our americans to freely exercise one of their most basic rights -- the right to bear arms. [applause] but you can't protect the second amendment if you don't protect the fourth amendment. if we are not securing our homes, if we are not securing our persons and our papers, can we really believe that the right to bear arms will be secure? we need -- we need to jealously guard all our liberties. [applause]
1:49 pm
the facebook generation can ditect falseness and hypocrisy from a mile away. i know. i have kids. they are the corps of the leave me alone coalition. they doubt that social security will be there for them. they don't believe those that feed them a line of crap or -- [applause] ask the facebook generation whether we should put a kid in jail for the nonviolent crime of drug use and you'll hear a resounding no. [applause] ask the facebook generation if they want to bail out too big to fail banks with their tax dollars and you'll hear a hell,
1:50 pm
no. [applause] there is nothing conservative about bailing out wall street. likewise, there is nothing progressive about billion-dollar loans to millionaires to build solar panels. [applause] the republican party has to change by going forward to the classical and timeless ideas enshrined in our constitution when we understand that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. then we'll become the dominant national party again. it's time for us to revaive reagan's law. for lib -- revive reagan's law. for liberty to expand, government must sh ring. [applause]
1:51 pm
for the economy to grow, government must get out of the way. this month i'll propose a five-year balanced budget. my budget eliminates the department of education. [applause] and devolves money back to the states where they belong. my five-year budget will create millions of jobs by cutting the corporate income tax in half. by creating a flat personal income tax of 17%.
1:52 pm
and cutting the regulations that are strangling american business. the only stimulus ever proven to work is leaving more money in the hands of those who earned it. the constitution must be our guide for conservatives to win nationally, we must stand for something. we must stand on principle. we must stand for something so powerful and so popular that it brings together people from the left and the right and the middle. we need a republican party that shows up on the south side of chicago and shouts at the top of our lungs we are the party of jobs and opportunity, the g.o.p. is the ticket to the middle class. [applause]
1:53 pm
the g.o.p. of old has grown stale and moss covered. i don't think we need to name many names, do we? our party is -- the new g.o.p. will need to embrace liberty in both the economic and the personal sphere. if we're going to have a republican party that can win, liberty needs to be the backbone of the g.o.p. we must have a message that is broad. our vision must be broad, and that vision must be based on freedom. there are millions of
1:54 pm
americans, young and old, native and immigrant, black, white and brown, who simply seek to live free, to practice a religion, free to choose where their kids go to school, free to choose their own health care, free to keep the fruits of their labor, free to live without government constantly being on their back. i will stand for them. i will stand for you. [applause] i will stand for our prosperity and our freedom, and i ask everyone who values liberty to stand with me. thank you. god bless america. thank you. [applause]
1:55 pm
>> all right. we're going to move forward with our next panel about benghazi and the aftermath. heading the panel is the honorable roger nor agea, the founder and managing director of vision america and part of the american enterprise institute. he has more than two decades of policy focusing on the western hemisphere. twice supported by puppet george w. bush, ambassador's contact, the vision and insight on the united states foreign policy and aids programs. joining him will be joe, editor in chief and in-house counsel. he's author of occasional affairs, closed archives, south africa. he ran for congress in 2010 in illinois as a tea party republican.
1:56 pm
john solomon served as executive editor of the washington guardian. he's appeared in "newsweek," "the washington post" and "new york times." he uncovered the truth about the benghazi massacre. finally, joining us is a distinguished fellow at the heritage foundation and hosts a daily talk radio show. prior to heritage, he served 14 years as the united states congressman from oklahoma and was ranked one of the top 20 conservatives in the house of representatives. please welcome your next panel. >> good afternoon, everybody. how many people would love the opportunity to follow senator
1:57 pm
rand paul? well, we hope we can make it interesting just the same because our panel discussion is intended to talk about benghazi . now, it's interesting to me, when bill clinton was president of the united states, there were so many people who made excuses and said, well, of course, the president was lying. after all, it was only about sex. and everybody lies about that. and how many times have you had anything that involved federal spending or campaign finance and you can't get a straight answer? for example, what is the minimum cost to be in the organizing for america meetings with president obama? is there a discount valuable from that $500,000? so we're told that politicians are expected not to be truthful when it comes to money. however, i believe why benghazi
1:58 pm
has struck a resident chord with people all across the country is because in this case the concern is that the president and his people were lying about matters of life and death and that is in such a different category from anything else. and the shame of benghazi is not only the president but it's with the media itself and what they did and they failed to do to followed up with it. -- to follow up with it. our panelists meant to explore -- well, i don't think that we're able to give you a formal report of what happened, and if you've read through the findings of this state department report, you find that it leaves just as many questions unanswered as answered. and we still don't know how many people were injured, are they still at walter reid
1:59 pm
medical center in washington, d.c.? have they been released? we can't get a straight answer about that. now, if you've been one of the 12 u.s. senators who had a chance to dine with president obama this past week, what might have been one of your questions? what happened that night? it has been six months, and we still have mysteries and we're told, well, the f.b.i. is investigating things. if you look at the orders that were given to the f.b.i. about what they're supposed to be investigating, it's curious to me, because the state department investigated what went on in the state department and the f.b.i. was tasked to tell us what went on overseas, but nobody has been asked to investigate what went on at the white house that night.
2:00 pm
it's a glaring omission. who wants to know? do you want to know? . why do you want to know? what difference does it make? and when we get answers like that, nothing you ask is -- has any importance. what difference does it make? or the president -- i mean, his answer this week saying, well, i don't want to balance the budget just for the sake of it. i don't want to have to tell the truth to the american people just for the >> i don't want to tell the truth to the american people just for the sake of being open and honest. he has higher purposes to serve. and benghazi i suppose stands for the bact that the higher purpose was to make sure you had good rest so you could go to vegas the next day and raise
2:01 pm
funds there. so benghazi is about the shame of the media in failing to answer these questions. not even noticing that the things that the president commissioned as investigations omitted the white house itself. negotiate the state department nor the f.b.i. was tasked when that. if and when the f.b.i. finishes their work, maybe somebody will notice they didn't do anything about what happened at the white house or failed to happen at the white house. but by then the philosophy of the obama administration is that it's going to be too late. so now is the opportunity that we are going to be hearing from our panelists and each of us will present a little bit of a different perspective on the panel about what happened that night and then i'll have some q&a interaction with them and
2:02 pm
we'll see if even if we cannot answer the questions for you, perhaps we can help people to understand what are the right questions so that some day wlrks it be a presidential candidate or a cnn moderator or senators having dinner with the president, maybe somebody can come up with the right questions to ask about benghazi and then hope and pray that some day we will get the proper answers. let me turn the time over to our panelists to let them make their remarks. roger. >> thank you very much congressman. please hold your applause. thank you very much. i have somebody paying attention up front. let me begin by making a very stark appraisal by what we learned from benghazi. and i just ask you to remember the famous commercials during
2:03 pm
the 2008 campaign about the 3:00 a.m. phone call. well the primary lesson from benghazi is that 3:00 a.m. phone call went to voice mail. it is a manifestation of the fact we have a president who takes responsibility for only one thing as far as i can tell which is improving his golf score. and he does that because it's something that only he can do, right? well, when you are president of the united states, there are a lot of things that only you can do. benghazi is actually two separate scandals. staggering scandals, one is that terrible night and how it was handled and the other is the coverup. and people in this room understand probably more than most americans. let's review those things and take a quick look at them. i have about five minutes here.
2:04 pm
there was the actual attack and the response which showed gross mismanagement. a closs cal blunders along the way when that beam si was attacked. i had experience as assist psnt secretary of state when haiti was the third most dangerous post after baghdad and cobble. >> the ambassador was asking for precautions and we took them. i worked for two secretary of state of state in that time and both of them independently asked me about the security in port brens. and thank god i had an answer and we did our jobs and we were secure. if something had happened, i
2:05 pm
can assure you the last thing i would have said is what difference does it make. if i had said that, that would have been the last thing i said in that job. why weren't we ready for benghazi? there was the misinformation that the president said al qaeda was on the run. they were coming over the wall, not on the run. >> they murdered a uzz ambassador and raised the flag. worst of all that night dozens of americans left to fend for themselves for four to seven hours without any help coming. secretary panetta testified late many months after this process and said we can't have the american military in harm's way. well, ladies and gentlemen, if there are americans facing harm at the hands of a terrorist attack, in harm's way is
2:06 pm
exactly what the american military needs to be and where it wants to be. quite frankly, it is shameless that some irresponsible anonymous person gave an order to stand down rather than stage a rescue and doesn't have the guts to come forward and take responsibility for that decision. the second part of this whole scandal is the coverup itself which we know this. even before they first blamed that emp mouse video, they knew that wasn't true. but they served up that cover store repeatedly and in the case of our president indignantly for months there after. maybe because they were totally uninformed about what was going on. let me emphasize another sobering lesson from benghazi. and you all know this.
2:07 pm
american journalism as we knew it before our rock star president. american journalism is dead. rather than raise the tough questions the congressman was mentioning, they have behaved like hockey goallies in front of barack obama's net. it makes a difference in a dangerous world. u.s. credibility is sometimes the only thing that stands between where we are and grave security threats. what does that look like today? >> the best thing you can say about the middle east peace process is there is less peace and no process. the president will be visited israel for the first time since he's been in office. that the least of our problems. if he had ideas, they would
2:08 pm
probably be bad ones. iran is creeping toward a nuclear bomb. al qaeda is resurgent and spreading. the american people have spent so much blood and treasure are struggling to stand on their own because we are leaving them on their own. the muslim brotherhood is at the hell new mexico egypt. a slaughter is going on. and what is our mess stooge terrorist whom we do capture 7 deadly words, have you the right to remain silent. now more than ever we need a president who is engaged and make tough decisions and stand behind them. is there anyone that looks at benghazi and thinks we have such a president today?
2:09 pm
>> good afternoon. it's a privelenl to be with you here today and to be on this panel and to follow senator ran paul and in the spirit of debate i want to begin my remarks on benghazi with a small criticism of senator paul's stance on foreign policy. not a mccain gram criticism but a constructive one i hope. his filibuster was brilliant, long overdue. but while he was right on the constitution, he was wrong on the art of war especially on the distinction of a combatant and non-combatant. we will not deserve to be taken
2:10 pm
seriously on foreign policy. let's start on benghazi. the attack on the u.s. consulate in ept was the worst national security failure since the original 9/11. it truly deserve it is label scandal for three reasons. one because president obama and his administration lied about the attack. two because the media aided the coverup. and three, because the president did nothing to rescue those at the conslute including ambassador chris stevens. but benghazi was not just a security failure. it was also a constitutional failure. the president has a constitutional duty to act as commander in chief and he failed to do so. he did not, as he once claimed in a tv interview with a reporter in denver, one of the few reporters who got past the
2:11 pm
hockey goalee. he did not issue those three directors as he claimed when he knew what was going on in benghazi, nor did he communicate with his cabinet the evening after learning about the attacks. and we now know the cabinet members did not talk to each other either. president obama's dereliction of duty reinforced a global perception of american weakness. al qaeda has lost its leader but regained it's momentum. we have done little to challenge chinese perceptions in the pacific. we have we have failed to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons n. speeches of course the obama administration insists all options are on the table including a military option. but iran considers our actions,
2:12 pm
not president obama's words which and what iran sees is a president committed to retreat. in june 2009, iran was surrounded east and west by u.s. led troops. over 60,000 in afghanistan and over 130,000 in iraq. that likely encouraged iranians to rise up against their government after the stolen election that summer. we could have helped the green revolution. we could have declared the government of iran illegitimate. well could have done something diplomatic but we didn't. had we intervened in that small way, we could have thepped iranians overturn their government and its nuclear program and its support for terrorism worldwide without firing a shot. but we allowed the regime time
2:13 pm
to regrufmente and five years later, by next year, iran will face no u.s. led troops in iraq, 12,000 at most in afghanistan and one less navy carrier in the persian gulf. that looks like retreat from their perspective. iran is the key in the region today. it has connections now with muslim brotherhood governments. it bridges the divide to fight common enmis, the u.s. and israel. yet the regime remains weak because it is hated by its own people. we can remove iran as a threat if we commit to a regime change by peaceful transition if possible and by military removal if necessary. e jim change is rarely the right policy. but it is the right policy in iran. the ironny is iran is one of
2:14 pm
the few places in the middle east where the obama administration refuse to support a popular uprising. but it must be toppled before ate tax the u.s. homeland in some way. we suspect and iran believes that president obama lack it is will to confront iran much less change immaterial. do we have the will to do so? that question has become more acute since senator paul's filibuster last week. it was a brave show of opposition. it proved one leader, a tea party leader was prepared to stand up for the constitution and the principle that individual liberty preveeds government power. he was wrong about one thing. it is not easy to distinguish between combatant and non-combatants. a foreign terrorist does not
2:15 pm
stop being a terrorist because he or she is far from the battlefield. if we step hypothetical example he used that a terrorist at a cafe is never a legitimate target then we cannot protect ourselves from terror. in our zeal to roll back power we will have placed ourselves in danger n. embracing the sequester, we cannot accept defense duties th cuts by putting our security at risk. we must replace those cuts with other cuts which we cannot be serious about protecting individual liberty from government if we are not also serious about protecting liberty from all enmisforeign and domestic. the reason we have our constitution and not the articles of confederation is our former system of government could not protect the nation or pay its debt. as we confront today's debt
2:16 pm
which is a national security risk, we should not make defense the first target for cuts. the benghazi attack happened because the president sacrificed military edness for domestic politics which we must learn from that mistake. our constitution calls for limited government. it also calls for a government that can defend the nation. as we pair back the expansive government that came along with the war on terror after 9/11, we must see that war through to victory and ensure our military is ready for the next challenges. we were warned no protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country. that's the point senator paul is making. war may lead to cralliesed power and the destruction of liberty over time. when a democratic people engages in war after a long
2:17 pm
peace, it incurse much more risk of defeat than any other nation. benghazi reminds us that we cannot defend liberty if we do not take the fight to our enmis. thank you. >> good afternoon. to try to get the truth out to american public that yearns for it in a government that often doesn't want to provide it. in the course of my career, i have never been at anoint time where i have seen a weaker media. i think the congressman said you it right.
2:18 pm
benghazi is a failure of the american media. we do not today ask enough of the hard questions. why is that? what has happened to us that has made us a bad equivalent of the silence of the lams? we are shrunken. there has been a great exodus of brain trust. reporters who had 30 and 40 years of experience in military matters which matters when you are trying to cover things like benghazi have walked out the door. they have created the culture that the news of the moment is so important we must get the top line that no one bite the hand that feed them. so much of the media has become be holden to the people that hand out the daily news. if you are afraid to buck that trend you will never get to the bottom of the stories like benghazi. the other day i was writing a
2:19 pm
story that is not too favorable to the justice department. and i was speaking to one of the people there and there was evidence that the f.b.i. director had used a corporate jet for their own personal travel. and you can imagen the first few words out of the spokesperson's mouth. i won't utter them here because it's not appropriate for a family audience. through the course of a ten minute conversation the spokesperson said if you go with that, i will destroy you. i will make sure you are embarrassed. that didn't work because i'm here today. but more importantly it's a threat which we live in a free society. when we stop as reporters exercising the first amendment which means asking tough questions and going against the grain, then we've ruined what our founding father's intended for my profession. i want to share what we've done. last summer uffs concerned
2:20 pm
about this trend so i made two decisions. one was to go back home to one of my favorite places. i was the executive editor of the washington times. i wanted to help strengthen one of the great newspapers in the capital. then i put my money with two colleagues and started our own website called the washington guardian. we're not interested in the top line of the news. we're interested in the other stories people aren't telling. we started labor day weekend and ten or eleven days later became the beginning of benghazi. i was about to go on a plane overseas on a trip and i saw these reports which and i said i wonder where diplomatic security is. we did a story we haven't been meeting security around the country. when i got to europe, i opened
2:21 pm
up "the new york times", the washington post and several other outlets and their story was the state department said they did everything it could to fort fy embassies. that wasn't true. this was a spontainnouse attack about a crowd that got angry about an islamic video it was story. i said that's not possible. within 40 hours of the attack the washington guardian had a story it was al qaeda linked extremist and it came in two waves anded the absolutely nothing to do with the video that had been making its way on the internet. so what did the media report the next two days? it was the video. u.n. ambassador went on television and said it was the video and came up with a muted
2:22 pm
story. and people in the intelligence community were saying no that's not true. the media took that story for two weeks until it could no longer be sustained. then we got shards of the truth. that troubles me today. if you think about the most recent story line that we have which is that somehow the administration knew the truth when susan rise went on tv but a bunch of intelligence officers, probably people i talked to to get the truth early on edited out the story line. that's the official story line of the administration and the news media has done that. so a few weeks ago we decided what did the president know. and we were able to get a caller: of what was in the president's briefing two days after benghazi. and it said the president was told two days after benghazi and three days before susan rise went on television that it
2:23 pm
was unrelated to the video and an attack carried out by extremmist. how does the media not tell the american people the truth as we've come to expect it? what can you do to change it? there are some bright spots. if i can disagree with the ambassador just a little bit. we're on life support but not dead yet. there are bright spots. new media places are cropping up. the washington guardian are coming back. and those places give us the best opportunity to get the truth back out and ask the hard questions that used to be asked in the white house press room in the ragegan days. we need people with the courage that are not worried about what we're going to tweet in five minutes but what the truth needs to be. we are seeing them crop up. get behind them, support them.
2:24 pm
if you have children that are thinking journalism is the last place to go, encourage them there are good things to be done. and you have a place to put your money. if you are subscribing to place that is don't give you the truth. there is on opportunity for folks at this convention here and all across the country to begin to send a message to my profession that it's time to clean up our act and reinvest in expertise and get the american people the truth. if you help us do that i promise you next year we'll have a better story to tell and not benghazi. so i look forward to the q&a. >> i want to give our panelists an opportunity discuss some important aspects and elaborate on some things. and i want you to listen closely to this quotation i'm about to read you from
2:25 pm
president obama. it's from his speech given in cairo june 4 of 2009. and i want the panelists to address is benghazi a symptom of a president who is soft on militant islam? this is the statement that the president gave in cairo. quote i consider it part of my responsibility as president of the united states to fight against negative stereo types of islam wherever they appear. i'll read that once more. i consider it part of my responsibility as president of the united states to fight against negative stereo types of islam wherever they appear. did that play into what we saw
2:26 pm
with the tragedy in benghazi? gentlemen, john. >> i'll start because i know in the early days what the administration was telling me when i was trying to report those stories. there are two story lines that still resonate in my brain which one is we need to be sensitive to the libyan government. it's their right to investigate a crime like this. it's an act of war when you attack our embassy. that has dominated things that have happened in this administration. going back to my own profession, where is the american enter in letting libyans taken the lead on the investigation. why wasn't our military called immediately? i could have flown there quicker than the boots got on the ground that day. how can that be in america when lebanon was struck. we had jets going in just a few
2:27 pm
minutes. i think the sensitivity of lending too much creedens to the region beginning with the arab spring being more concerned about that. is it right or wrong that's for the american people to decide. as a journalist i hear this theme every day. >> it's not objectable for the president to defend muslims because there are millions of muslims who are american citizens but that's not what he said which he said islam as a religion or civilization or what have you and the connection is tied to the story that was told and reiterated in the media about the video where the president actually went to the united nations and gave a speech after benghazi talking about those who defame islam. i forget his exact remarks but saying he was going after those
2:28 pm
who defame is louisiana that's not why we elected him. that's not his role. i think the movie story is interesting. because what the president was doing was actually not very subtle. what the president was doing and the white house and everybody who bought into this idea there was this movie that caused all the trouble. who made the movie? it was someone in america. we didn't know the identity of the film maker at the time but it was a christian film maker. this was a rehash of a few years before where a pastor was going to burn the can you ran and our politicians felt they had to apologize for this exercise of the first amendment of the constitution. i'm not saying it's a great idea but the first amendment doesn't protect speech that you like. so they reiterated this -- what
2:29 pm
the president was saying to the muslim world in benghazi was don't blame my administration, blame these craze bitter clingers in america who do these things to defend the rest of the world. what he was saying is the people who defend their faith, the people who who defend their liberties and don't give a damn about the rest of the world are the problem. absolve me and america. you don't have to accept american ideals and the american people which it was a rehash of the narrative that the administration was a part of in that case. the main stream media reiterated. there is a cultural battle that the administration is waging against people in this room, against the bitter clingers what like the second amendment, who use the first amendment, whether it's religion or
2:30 pm
speech. that to me was a disgrace. before we knew there had been deaths in benghazi, we knew there were people scaling the walls at the embassy in cairo. they were twitting apologies ability this film and we shouldn't be insensitive about religious beliefs of others. their first response was to dump on the first amendment. i think that was a disgrace that really set the stage for everything that followed. >> let me give you the quote from the united nations speech. and president obama said this, the future must not be long to those who sland ter profit of islam. but to be credible those who
2:31 pm
condemn that must condemn church that is are destroyed or the holocaust that is denied. and i will just note that the effort to provide balance as it were in that was totally missing in the speech that he maid in cairo. >> yes, i would say that the single biggest event in modern history that has thurt image of islam were the 9/11 attacks. and if you are going to prevent those sorts of attacks in the future against us and other incident people around the world, we have to do a more effective job of fighting terrorism than i think he's prepared to do. this sniper and foreign drone policy that snuffs out terrorists rather than capturing them on those occasions when you can and
2:32 pm
taking them to guantanamo, not manhattan and not telling them they have the right to remain silent is a better approach in this war. i think we all could pay very deerly for this ideological orientation that they have against guantanamo, against the tactics that kept us safer a dozen years. part of that ideology is in the president's mind the kind of orientation he had as a young man is this sort of third world anti-colonial anti-western orientation. and i think that's at the heart of a lot of this. and those attitudes he has make this a less safe world quite frankly. [applause] >> one of the key moments maybe
2:33 pm
a turning point in the presidential race was in the second presidential debate where mitt romney asked the president or accused he said you haven't called this an act of terrorism. obama said he d. candy interjected herself. you remember that moment. that i believe mitt romney asked totally the wrong question. i want to read you from the transcript the question that was posed by a member of the audience which was never answered by obama and i believe romney should have used his time to say mr. president why don't you answer the question from the audience and i'll give you some of my time to do so. this was the question. he said this question comes from a brain trust of my friend at global telecom supply yesterday.
2:34 pm
it just shows some of the wisdom of every day people as opposed to political people. we were sitting around talking about libya and we were reading and became aware of reports that the state department refused extra security for our embassy in benghazi prior to the attacks that killed four americans. here was the question. who was it that denied enhanced security and why? now i'd like your comments about what it was right question that should have been asked and how would you have made sure that president obama answered it while on that national stage at a critical moment when the deaths were still fresh? let's go in reverse order if we can. >> when i said that american journalism is dead. of course there are exceptions. fox news and there is one
2:35 pm
breave soul at cbs that keeps her resume handy. >> cheryl on cbs. >> again, from my experience in the state department where we were making those decisions on a regular basis about the security of our embassies. first off, i had the title, it's a great honor to have the title of ambassador. if you are out in far corners of the world and you're under attack, your first concern is the people that work with you. and the very idea that nobody came and they made no effort to must ernie sort of rescue attempt at all is i think scandalous. and the very idea that the people who were responsible for security and making decisions about security, these people
2:36 pm
should be fired. [applause] . and i don't remember which senator it was who said it to hillary clinton -- >> senator johnson who was supposed to be on the panel and could not make it >> said i would have fired you. that's where i would have been. >> that was rand paul. >> up and down the line. if that sort of attack had happened in our administration, those people would have paid with their jobs and rightfully so and the media would have insisted there be accountability. that's the problem. a scandal like this happens, i'm not talking about show trials. i'm talking about the congress asking eskive questions in a timely way. people making themselves available to answer these questions and then some sort of accountability for those lives lost. i think it's tragic that the father of one of the slain men is standing there receiving the
2:37 pm
casket and next to him was hillary clinton and she leens over and says we're going to get the guy who made that video. what an utter scandal when she knewed the nothing do with that video. building a narrative. propagated this lie is outrageous to me. >> i think going back to the second debate, the question that romney allowed himself to get tracked into it was question of what did the president call this attack and did he call you it a terror attack and that's when candy intervened. there was an important question because it went to the question of whether obama had lied to the american people. but it really was a secondary question and the danger when you let the media define the questions and you let the media
2:38 pm
host the debates is you let them suck you into these things and it always a game of keep away. cheryl did a great job but steve croft was sitting on the videotape where obama said it wasn't an act of terrorism and didn't release it until two days before everybody went to vote. they had that tape and didn't release it until then. they said we did release it before the election, just happened to be three weeks late. the question is what were you doing when americans were in danger. and obama by that time had made a very specific claim, a claim that could be questioned. and this is the point about journalists not knowing what questions to ask and not having that experience or interest. obama said i gave three directives as soon as i heard about what was going on in benghazi. one was to make sure our
2:39 pm
personnel were safe. second was to start an investigation as to how it happened and the third is to make sure it never happens again. that's very nice. it's all after the fact but none of that address it is ongoing crisis unless you can argue that making our personnel safe does. when did he make those directives? is there any evidence of those? those are public documents. whatever they were, they can be obtained somewhere. evidence of the directives must exist. where are the journalists asking jay carney we'll is it here until you give us the directives. when were they issued and there is no issue to that because they were never issued. i think it was a huge lie. why do we know it's a lie? because subsequent testimony revealed the president spoke to no one, called no one, queened
2:40 pm
no meetings. the only thing that happened in a sense in those hearings in january and february which we finally got, the only criticism we heard from was general dempsi criticizing hillary clinton saying i can't imagine she wouldn't have known about the security requests denice. that's what the media has to do. it's so easy and they are not doing it. >> spot on. >> it's hard for me to handicap what question would have worked that night because in october we didn't have a complete story and tonight believe we have one now. i know what question if i could come back and be a white house correspondent. i know what i would ask the president of the united states promise he would bring to justice the people that committed this attack. when is he going to do that?
2:41 pm
how is he going to do that? it ners gets asked. what about the families who are sitting back there when 9/11 occurred justice began. you can go back to lebanon, you can go back when sad dam hugh sane violated the no fly zone. it doesn't seem that's a satisfied answer. if they hadn't thrown me out after the first question i'd probably ask this question, when you were sitting there and susan rice went on television and you know what the real story was, did you feel compelled at all to correct the public record? he clearly had to know that story was not right. i know because his daily briefing told him. so why did he not feel obligated to correct the story line and then blame it on a bunch of sensors who told me the truth 48 hours after it
2:42 pm
happened. those are the questions if i had the chance i'd ask. >> i want to give you a chance to based upon each of you have done a lot of work of digging into the rumors, the facts, the deceet, the unanswered questions about benghazi. i want to give you each a chance to speculate if you will and you can tell us the degree to which it's pure speculation, informed guesses or you really believe this is what happened. but what do you believe is the dirty little secret of benghazi? and secondly, what do you think president obama did that night that was so pressing? was his favorite movie on tv or what was it that he avoided making any calls or giving any instructions or whatever? >> i can be quick on this.
2:43 pm
the dirty little secret is hardly a secret. it's that the president talked about this once and walked away and forth about -- forgot about it. what he was doing? every minute of the president's time is blocked out. it's tracked very closely. what he wasn't doing was talking to any member of his national security team. when he knew and went to bed that night knowing that the man -- remember when he said these are my people. i send them out there. how dare you say that i don't care about their well being. well you have to care more than going out to dover and receiving their bodies when you leave them there defenseless. that's the fact that the president did not do his duty
2:44 pm
as commander in chief. >> i think the dirty secret is that the administration understood that there were americans at risk and decided that they could contain the risk if they did not send further troops in because there is always a risk when you send troops to protect fellow troops or civilians in danger, diplomats that there will be more casualties. and i think what president obama and his advisors were worried about was that there would be many many casualties. it's happened before many times in afghanistan, we lost navy seals when helicopters full of navy seals were shot down. we've lost lots of civilian police officers, firefighters,
2:45 pm
similar circumstances. they want to be in harm's way. they want to be there. that's what they are trained to do and want to do. there is always a risk you are going to lose more lives and i think the president was worried having many casualties would be something he couldn't ignore politically. but if you could contain the casualties to the few there there would not be political damage. that sounds like a cruel thing to say about the president of the united states. you don't have to believe me. you can read on the web which had an article about how the president failed in afghanistan and the argument made based on journalism reporting was that every decision made by president obama about afghanistan was mediated through his political advise source. everything that was done was in sons response to the question what will republicans do about this, what will the media say about that. what are the domestic political
2:46 pm
consequences? he did not act as command ner chief that night. he acted as head of his campaign. the dirty little secret is that they decided to cut their losses and to contain the violence torks have people on stand by ready to go but not to sacrifice further u.s. personnel or assets in case there was more fire power on the ground than they knew about and they stood down for that reason. that's the secret. >> i'm going to confess because by professional training i never speculate on something, at least not in public. but i think there are a few things i can offer insight on. the media has covered benghazi as if it was one continuous attack. it was two attacks four hours apart. the first attack was on the consulate its. military assets couldn't have
2:47 pm
gotten there short of launching cruise missiles which you wouldn't do to take care of that attack. then four hours later another attack with mortars that were very destructive. the two navy seals described as security guys weren't security detail at all. could is united states have the capability in four hours to get boots on the ground? and if we don't have that capability what are we doing in libya without a position to have that rescue capability? we need that answer which we know no one ever asked for any assets to go. could they have made it there? that's an important question for future protection of assets around the globe. a second question that comes to mind for me is why was chris
2:48 pm
stevens there on september 11. this is the question i get radio silence. no one wants to answer this question. it makes no sense for an ambassador to be sitting in a location where they were just denied additional security. i got his last memo to hillary clinton 11 hours before he died and he described benghazi as a decoo of violence. i'm worried they can't protect us. they are threatening to pull our security. somebody has to ask why he was there. it was a symbolic day for terrorist. it was the most insecure lokes at the time. you don't go in without a good reason. so someone has to answer the question why did he go there and the administration doesn't want to answer that question. i don't know why but i'm going to keep digging. >> final question and it's important to keep answers brief on this but the fact that this
2:49 pm
attack occurred at a time when the president said well osama bin laden is dead and we've got al qaeda on the run and wanted it to appear that militant islam was impotent and yet we've seen from that attack and the algeria attack at the b.p. facility, libya, molly, algeria, al qaeda affiliates in north aftercarks what is this telling us about the cooperation and sophistication of terrorism and how it remains a threat? >> al qaeda is on the run so they are in many different countries. they used to be in one country so we could bomb them. everyone i talk to them tells me al qaeda is still resurgent and i don't think the media has
2:50 pm
done a good job in highlighting that threat. >> i think one of the reasons terrorist groups survive is they get sponsor ship from states. they don't exist in a vacuum. there are states that train, arm, cover for them. iran is one of those states, syria is one of thotes states and there are others as well which we have to go to those states. it doesn't have to be militarily. but we've got to stop the people who are accountable to the international community. who are accountable because we give them foreign aid. we've got to stop them from promoting the acts of terrorism that is fueling the resurgence of al qaeda and other groups across the region. >> what we've learned in spite of the fact that the president made the guttiest decision ever in the history of man kind to kill osama bin laden and made two very good movies about it,
2:51 pm
al qaeda is still a very pressing threat and we have to remember his ba la as well. i'm a latin americanist. i'll mention they have a beach head in venezuela. it's elsewhere. they partner with the narco traffickers and that means the threat is right up to our border. i have to give credit to those who are focusing on this threat in the u.s. congress. because that's the one we will face next. and god forbid, someone john carrie is before the senate one of these days and has an opportunity say what difference does it make. >> thank you. thank you everyone for spending time was.
2:52 pm
captioning by the national captioning institute >> citizen united. >> 25 years ago we felt people were to defend our rights as ronald ragedown in his presidency. >> so citizens united was an organization dedicated to protecting our rights. advocacy and grassroots organization our goal was to reis tert the traditional american values of limited government, freedom of
2:53 pm
enterprise, strong families and national sovety and security. with your support we've made a tremendous impact on the cause for america. >> what's great about event brite is we see who came to our event. we can contact those people and ask them why they didn't show up. get them to come to another event.
2:54 pm
it's been great for our supporters. we didn't have a lot of money to advertise this event. it was a great way to get the message out in a cheap way. >> i work with a lot of political campaigns. it's easy to use. you data capture and ability to collect funds. all the things that are difficult were easy. >> ladies and gentlemen, children of all ages, the fight
2:55 pm
is about to start. what you are going to see is a friendly competition. the president of let freedom ring and cpac 2013,. >> this is going to be fun. is everybody ready? are you ready for today's heavy weight bout? by the time this match is over, we'll be able to see who is right and who is left. we'll see some jabs, some glancing blows and maybe a knockout punch. and remember fighters fight best when the crowd let's them know how they are doing. so cheer as loud as you'd like. are you ready? it's time to introduce our
2:56 pm
political fighting out of the left corner who was a commen date or for cnn paul big government. and fighting out of the right corner weighing in as the former host of cnn's cross fire, a fox news contributor and standing tall as the co-founder of the daily caller talker tucker. >> thank you. we'll have some fun here today. this is going to be a three round bout. there are no rules and a fighter can be "saved by the bell." so let's shake hand, come out
2:57 pm
commen dating and let's go gentleman. >> now in the first round i'll be posting out a series of topics and each fighter will have one minute to respond. we'll go on an order that was decided backstage completely fairly documented after we made sure that all voters had i.d. we're going to begin with paul understand each case, each of them will answer the same question. so there is the bell, we are ready to go. it's round one, question one, america -- isn't that magnificent. i can see why you would get distracted. >> america is the world's police women. get over it. >> thank you colin and tucker. thank you for having me here. it's a beautiful facility here
2:58 pm
at the gay lord. i can't say gay but the lord. this is a great place to b. honestly i don't know if i've ever been treated as well. you're fun, you're funny, you're polite. i hope when the left invites tucker to a liberal meeting, american society of newspaper editors or something tucker is as well treated. so america is the world's police women. we are the indispendable nation. we are the most powerful on earth. there are two ways to do it. the way bush did it, invade and take over at the cost of lives and your money. that's the stupid way. then there is the obama way. find the enemies, hunt them down without having to invade, ockmy and conquer their countries which i don't want america to be in the business of turning every land into
2:59 pm
wisconsin. >> we have four guys dead. what difference at this point does it make? >> is she here? >> she's not here. she's going to come on later. >> we'll come back to her. >> we'll come back to her. >> i want to thank paul for coming here and thank you all for being nice to paul who is a brave man. i want to thank secretary clinton for gracing us with her presence twice. of course we are the world's police women. it's been left to us because the other so-called world powers are too cheap, morally indirnt or happy to sponge off of us they have neglected their duty to keep some sense of order in the world. we are unwilling to let crazy people run through our neighborhood, yes we are the
3:00 pm
world's police women. what we are not is the world's social worker. so to the extent we take it upon ourselves, the goal or false only fwation to bring sufficient rans to countries, make sure that is not our job. we're good at building roads, crushing opposing armies. no government is good at the work of nation building, including ours. >> next question, and tucker you will go first. federal debt does not matter. we can stimulate our way to prosperity. >> you are insane for suggesting such a notion. i believe that that matters because i believe in math. here's what i know about math -- this is another way of saying i believe in size. you often hear the left lecture on science.
3:01 pm
we are on the side of science. anybody who ignores the obvious point that if you expend more energy than you bring in, you die, whether a business, person, or country. the person who ignores that is against science. in the long run, a country that spends more, than it raises, cannot continue. it is an existential threat to our country. that was established by cut back -- by economist after, miss. common sense confirms it. the federal debt, there's a bigger pie problem perry >> that to me quote dick cheney, who said ronald reagan taught us that deficits do not matter. dick cheney was wrong. he was wrong then and now. of course deficits matter, but anyone of you who supported
3:02 pm
the bush plans, has no right to speak. i helped bid -- bill clinton balance the budget and build a surplus. why? because we had good economic times. in good economic times, you pay down the deficit, but reagan and bush did not, and in bad times you have to stimulate in the near term, at that -- as they got president obama is doing you forgot the role. you have to touch up if you creep out -- if you supported creating the deficit. we democrats will balance the budget once again. >> paul, which is more apparent to america's pursuit of happiness, -- which is more dangerous, excuse me, that a 357
3:03 pm
magnum -- >> you would find it 17 guns and no cans of soda pop. i have the right wing position on the giant drink soda thing. i do not like the idea, and i think bloomberg is a fine man, but i do not like government telling us what size so that today. this one, he to say, but i am with tucker and most of you. i have the right wing position on gun safety. i have the same position as ronald reagan, who was for a before you buy a gun. i have the same position as the president of the n andra beforee flipped plopped in the last few months if you give a dr. pepper to a bad back, all he will do is
3:04 pm
get fat. if you allow that bad guy who is either a criminal or insane, to get it done, then bad things happen. >> someone who is neither a criminal or insane, i disagree. both firearms and big gulps are integral to american topic -- have been asked for similar reasons. firearms are the root of the right to self-protect. if you do not have the right to protect yourself or your family, you have no rights at all. without firearms you are incapable of doing that. it's that simple. i do not think someone who is either insane or criminal i ought to get the government's permission before i buy or sell a far from someone who is equally law-abiding. i am a threat to no one. as for big gulps, this is another battle being waged by the left. they did not ban cappuccinos
3:05 pm
because their donors drink them pit imagine the great unwashed likes that. it is a basic attack on your symbol pleasures, and it is one of many -- the right to smoke, the right to get a tan. stand up for your rights to please yourself. >> american seniors -- should they be more afraid of our private social a separate accounts or "obamacare"? >> senior should not be as afraid as they are. i think both parties get a lot, especially the democratic, but republicans, that it is carrying zero people and it is wrong. this is the safest and most secure country in history, and all of us, every person, will die. the faster we accept that, the happier we will be. that said, you ought to be
3:06 pm
concerned with the government decides it has the power and the knowledge to determine choices of what kind of health care humes secret you should pursue against that. he should not let them take away your big gulps. people my age ought to be concerned about this attempt to organize us into more efficient units. there's not one person smart and enough to organize 209 million of us into one efficient unit. >> i speak for a rabbani when i say thank god for harry reid stopped busch's plan to privatize social security. so you wanted to turn her grandmother postretirement to lehman brothers, bear stearns? that is the people who were in charge. social security has been around for 75 years and has never missed a check. thank god for social security. as for -- as for "obamacare,"
3:07 pm
call your mother, father, ask them if they like being on medicare. they love it. yes. and yet medicare only has 5000 employees. private insurance has hundreds of thousands of employees. government, more efficient and health insurance. more effective, lower overhead, better outcomes, lower prices. the only change i want to make is the eligibility age to birth. let's all get on medicare then we will have a real system. >> i will not answer that, but i would love to all on. have you been to the dmv lately? yes. house of service. >> when secretary of state hillard erie @ clinton appeared for the senate hearing on and got as they come here is what she said about the cause of the riot --
3:08 pm
here is what she said. [video clip] >> what difference at this point does it make? >> the last question is round one is her question -- what difference does it make? the amount we no americans were killed and their deaths must be avenged. that is what she was saying, and i hope everybody agrees with that. one of the problems i have is when our embassies and consulates in 11 places were attacked by terrorists in the bush administration none of you bushboo. use by this time, crutch, saudi arabia, in yemen in athens, all run the world we were under attack, and republicans voted against spending the money to hard and those facilities and make them safe. if you are upset about been
3:09 pm
gauzy, i suggest my republican friends look in the mirror. >> i would say this -- it is worth at been shaving the deaths of americans abroad. we have not been -- we do not have a single perpetrator in custody. hard to bring perpetrators to justice if you do not bother to find out who they are. hillary would not be an effective police officer. it does matter because details matter, justice matters, because the truth matters. it is worth taking the time to find out what happened for one sabol reason -- that prevent it from happening again. >> that is the end of round one. [bell rings] and now for round two, the fighters are allowed to ask each other questions, and i remind
3:10 pm
the fighters that you should try to ask the questions that the mainstream media is to a freight ask, but it is open field, your choice, and we will begin with top recocuker. >> you are close to the former vice president al gore. his overriding its third is saving the earth from an environmental holocaust. he often says that. given that goal, were you surprised to discover he just took $100 million from the oil- rich family that runs qatar, and next time you see him, will you ask him to give that money to an environmental charity with his apologies? >> when our grandchildren inherits a planet that is still alive and functioning, they will think al gore, the nobel peace prize winner. you do not believe in climate
3:11 pm
science, as tucker pointed out. it is real. i think this is ingenious. this is gore at his best tree he is using these funds for good. he is a genius. >> that was valiant. here's my question. mr. carlson, matt romney could live anywhere he wants, except the white house, and so he chose to sell his mansion in utah and buy a mansion in liberal la jolly california. why did he decide to settle in california? >> mitt romney -- the name rings a bell -- as someone who is from la jolla, i would say he is inexplicable, to be honest with you. i would have been happier had
3:12 pm
mitt romney moved to highland park, texas, for example. there you go. or those louisiana. i will say if you are interested in drinking complicated coffee and going surfing, la jolla is fantastic. >> he does not drink coffee. >> that is right. >> just frother. -- frother. -- froth. >> i ask you this question last year. i will ask it again because you are qualified, of all the people in this room, you know more about this than any. you are personally close to the clintons. do you believe that she will run for president in the next cycle, and do you think she should? >> duel i think she should, absolutely.
3:13 pm
i work backwards and say which to be a good and president? the answer is no, she would be a great president. it is interesting now that we have moved toward some potential mythical one-day hypothetical hillary candida city, all right wingers are saying she is evil. that is a sign that you guys are afraid. i hope she does. i have no idea. i think she will live a life, write her book, reacquaint herself with the real-world, having been traveling the world, is not a republican society lady. she is a real woman. what she will do is go around in a non-governmental capacity trying to empower women because where women are empowered, the whole society does better. it is absolutely true. she is a global force for good,
3:14 pm
and i hope and pray that she runs for president. >> my last question. on the level, i'm a professional bush basher, which is a unique gift i have. it is really easy. i will say this about george the bush -- his emergency plan for relief was wonderful. was outstanding. it was america at its best. it was george padilla bush at his best. it's a more live than any president what has obama -- this is an honorable thing, what i just did about bush. >> that program would have been wonderful if he had raised the money himself. it is not the government's role to pay for medicine to foreign governments. what is the one thing that obama has done that i applaud, and i
3:15 pm
have to say his second inaugural, just two months ago, the president walked down the length of pennsylvania avenue shooting nicoreete. i respect that appeared to be in the world living in the world where all of your buddies who worship you like jesus are telling you the most of the thing you can do, not commit abortion, but used a backup products summer that is the worst thing you could ever be great for this guy to flaunt his addiction in public was courageous, compelling, and an inspiration to all of us. bo, barack obama. >> that is the end of round two. now for the final round, the lightning round. we will play a word association game. i was a word in each fighter response with the first thing that pops into your mind and keep it short. we will start on the left with
3:16 pm
paul. are you ready? round three and begins. benghazi. >> not the result of the youtube video. >> iranian nukes. >> scary, but not as great a threat as medicare. >> unacceptable. must be stopped at all costs. >> "argo"? >> i love and movie about the carter initiation. >> the only good thing that happened in the carter administration. [applause] >> afghanistan. >> never going to be belgium. >> think got obama is ending that war and bring those troops home. thank god. >> irs. >> jesus loves tax collector's point that is why he accepted
3:17 pm
the house about cox the hospitality of tax collectors. they call them publicans. >> if only the border patrol were as feared and effective. >> hispanic america. >> winnable. gracias.rats, and pro >> chinese cyber attacks. >> how can people be so stupid and not know why there are 6000 dead pigs floating through their river? >> i would say more threatening than anything happening in the middle east. sorry. >> putin. >> evil, yet hilarious. >> bush called him pooty pute.
3:18 pm
you have not seen the pictures. >> nra. >> does not represent most gun owners like me who are for president's obama's gun regulations. you have to deal with the reality. >> the only organization working to protect the constitutional right that "the new york times" hates. >> sequester. >> y2k up politics. >> it hasn't gone, and it is so incredibly dumb and it will hurt this country. a totally self-inflicted wound. >> rich people. >> right there is my favorite rich person right there. i cannot hate all rich people. >> arrogant, but i hope to join
3:19 pm
their ranks. >> poor people. >> it is a relative measure, but i would say a group i have great sympathy for and deserves a shot. >> there is this big that concern as 8 the poor. they love the poor because they created so many of them. >> ashley judd. >> why does every right wing guy i know think it is horrible to that she posed naked in movies, but thought it was fine that scott brown posed nude in a magazine? >> i was against scott brown's nudes. hair on fire crazy, but the gift that keeps on getting. >> clint eastwood. , oscar for the best club the -- best political convention. >> i will not tackle a legend.
3:20 pm
i am not going to attack and 80- year-old legend. i will not attack that. >> tea party. >> harry reid's best friend. thank you for saving the majority in the senate 40 part iers. >> understood. >> reagan. >> principles. >> principals and liberals. it was ahead of his time on gay- rights. reagan was a liberal. >> president barack obama. , greatest president of the 21st century. obvious. even you have to agree he was better than bush. >> i would say cold, remote, and deeply cynical. >> an easy gone -- go.d
3:21 pm
>> present in the details. >> god is love. >> just buy a lot of the draw, you lead with satan. >> and is hate. >> the dark lord of good intentions. >> last run amok hugo chavez. now.tan's roommate couldeally we sish i annoy you, but he was a -- >> that is the end here and we need to hear from you. who is the winnerwho is it paul begala, or is it tucker
3:22 pm
carlson? >> i win. >> you go back and read the papers again. we want to thank each of these. we want to thank you, and i is missing want to thank paul begala. a little more of an uphill climb for him. we're delighted to have you both. thank you so much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
3:23 pm
>> isn't it funny how the left the paris barack obama tried reagan as they were similar in any way whatsoever? for instance, can you match and obama collecting chain saws? that is what ronald reagan did pick your seat chainsaws as birthday gifts from his son, and reagan would spend his time away from the white house not playing golf, but at his ranch, clearing brush and chopping down trees and which is something that barack obama is physically capable of doing. the nice tie -- the next time you hear a leftist try to compare obama to reagan, you can laugh out loud for these reasons. our next speaker governor rick paid very -- governor rick perry
3:24 pm
-- we are honored to have him reagan's ranch a few years ago. it serves as a place of inspiration for so many movement leaders. rick perry was elected in 2000 and he has maintained a strong focus on fiscal discipline, becoming the only texas governor to sign budgets the reduced revenue spending. he has overseen a 43% increase in public education spending can and has worked with the legislature to fund border security efforts. please give a warm welcome to governor rick perry.
3:25 pm
less texas. they told me to come in, i said, which were, and they said i have to turn to left. i said i do not turn left well. it is a big honor to be asked to speak, and i want to say thank you to those who have allowed me to come, and for all the bashing's that i say about washington. i never mind coming here. this is a fabulous place to come, and when we got here, i actually was surprised to step off our united flight and see that everybody was still here, and from what i have been reading about the sequestration, i figured obama would have shut
3:26 pm
the place down and send everybody home. actually, that would not be -- that would probably be the first good idea he has had. when you think about it -- just kidding. well, mostly, mostly. i come from what a lot of people might seem to think is a foreign country. we have a balanced budget. we have a surplus. we are creating more jobs than the other states in the union. and we are doing this with a part-time legislature that makes for only 140 days every other year. our legislators hours, they come in, pass law, and then they go home and live under the loaws just passed.
3:27 pm
we had a part-time congress in washington, would they really get less done? huh? what we are getting is a lot of hysteria. we are getting a lot of hysteria right now from a president more concerned about the next election and saving programs like medicaid, medicare, and social security. president obama is campaigning full-time against the sequestered that he created. he has used schoolteachers and border patrol agents, airport security, janitors as part of his portrait of pain. he has decided to shut down shuttours. apparently, now the only folks who can get a tour of the white house are those who contribute $500,000 or more. this president's posture would
3:28 pm
be laughable if he had not taken it one step too far. dangerously releasing criminals onto our streets instead of a political point. when you have a federally sponsored jail break -- and that is exactly what this is, a federally sponsored jailbreak, you cross the line from politics of spin to the creighton form of cynicism, where everything goes, everything goes in order to win the next election. here is my concern -- if the president cannot handle $85 billion in cuts that he suggested, how can we ever believe that he will tackle trillion-dollar deficits, unfunded intel but obligations
3:29 pm
that amount to trillions of dollars more? our deficit is approximately equal to our gdp. every dollar we spend, 40 cents is barred from some bank in a place like china. the resolution to this debt ceiling debacle led to the first downgrading of american credit in the history of this country. we have a president who refuses to put a single plan on paper that seriously addresses the deficit spending, entitlement reforms. those are inexplicable. but he is more than willing to do a photo-op with first responders and teachers to decry the spending reductions that amount to less than 1% of the total annual budget.
3:30 pm
if the president is worried about overtime pay for capitol others, i say what about the stagnant wages of millions of american workers, what about the one in seven americans resigned the food stamps, what about small business and home owners that cannot get loans because dodd-frank for some credit for americans all across this country? what about the americans who cannot get full-time work due to the most anemic recovery since the great depression? mr. president, nor plans to tax and spend our nation to prosperity, they will fail as spectacularly as the economics you have barred from john maynard keynes. let us be clear about what is
3:31 pm
the crux of the debate in washington. it is whether america ends will surrender to the creation of an massive welfare state in the image of western europe. my quarrel is not with the legitimate role of government, but the unlimited role of government. investments in research and defense capabilities and infrastructure and border security are vital american issues, and issues that washington needs to address. but we have turned the constitution on its head and the federal government has inserted itself into every aspect of american society. and instead of allowing states become laboratories of for form,
3:32 pm
washington's central planners are coopting the responsibilities reserved to the states and individuals under the 10th amendment to the constitution. if the federal policy fiscal coercion is now at the hearts of the debates of medicaid expansion, proposed under "obamacare," some of our friends and allies in the conservative movement have folded in the face a federal bribery and mounting pressure from special interest groups. they tell us to take the money. in the case of texas, $4 billion, because it is free. but there is nothing free. there's nothing free that comes from washington, because for starters, it is our money.
3:33 pm
this is our money, our money that we have tacked on to the national debt either by borrowing from china or pulling it right off the progresses. secondly, nothing stops washington from changing their rules down the road and the increasing the states' share, which in the case of texas will be up to more than $18 billion over 10 years. that is a lot of money. that is a lot of money for the 14th largest economy in the world. all we have is a promise to. all we have is a promise and i promised from a federal government that apparently cannot afford to keep dangerous criminals behind bars. it is as if the merits of the expenditure do not matter any more. but i say they do. i say medicaid does not need to be expanded. it needs to be saved and reform. we care about our poorest
3:34 pm
texans. we want the that the best care possible, and that cannot happen with a program that a as on its way to bankruptcy. if you do not believe me that medicaid is broken, just ask our president. four years ago, he said, "we cannot simply put more people into a broken system that does not or." and yet that is exactly what he is doing or tried to do in the case of texas. no program has grown more rapidly in the last 15 years at the state level of than medicaid. washington's solution is to grow at faster, regardless of the fact the medicaid program is unsustainable. here is what we need. instead of this one size fits all medicaid expansion under obamacare, flexibility to
3:35 pm
innovate, to enact patient- centered market-driven reforms, state accountability requirements, combined with limits on federal overage -- we need a medicaid program that emphasizes personal responsibility with copays on a sliding scale, deductibles and premium payments for emergency room care, small contributions, so patients take ownership over their utilization of care. we need to take an acid test to make sure that care is there for those who need it most. we need the ability to offer medicaid clients held savings accounts, getting patients more control over health care spending. nothing about the medicaid expansion should move citizens
3:36 pm
from existing private coverage and employer-sponsored coverage to the public rolls. nothing should do that. medicaid dollar should be used to keep people on private insurance, and the best way to help states provide health care is to allow states to design better, more efficient, more effective care using medicaid dollars. this will allow each state tailor the programs, specifically serving the needs of those unique challenge the state's half. we know more about and care more about the physical and economic health of our citizens than the federal government does. give states like texas the flexibility to actually fix medicaid and to create more cost-inefficient health care for our families, our neighbors and
3:37 pm
for our health care providers. absent those changes and needed flexibility is, the medicaid expansion amounts to one large incremental step towards a single-payer socialized medicine. that is where we are headed. i for one will not accept that as long as i am the governor of the state of texas. there are some who say my position is ideological, but that is only true to the extent that being able to pay one possibility in the years ahead is ideological. washington does not worry about how to pay bills. they just charge it to our grandchildren's account. but in texas, our constitution requires a balanced budget. it's so happens that balanced budgets in one of the lowest tax
3:38 pm
and spending burdens in the nation cars funds with our number-1 ranking when it comes to job creation. we are leading the way in job creation in all categories, on all salary levellers, from entry-level to the executive wuite. vince in texas comes back to the crux of the issue. i mentioned earlier, i said we do not believe in growing government to grow the economy. we did not believe in a massive expansion of government as a source of economic stimulation. we believe in putting more money in the hands of entrepreneurs and family. we believe low-wage jobs should not be looked upon as they are a stepping stone to a higher-wage talks. we believe the best source of revenue for public priority is job creation, not higher taxation.
3:39 pm
if washington were serious about job creation, it would not pour hundreds of billions of dollars into so-called stimulus. it would reduce the red tape on energy exploration on federal lands and waters. the single fastest whey to boost our economy and generate hundreds of thousands of dollars is to unleash the energy exploration across america. shale formations of america the cheapest natural gas in the world, and natural gas is clean. why would this administration the lake energy solutions on this continent only to make us more reliant on energy produced in foreign lands? the administration must policy of benign -- is foot dragging on keystone, it is blocking of coastal's exploration, its
3:40 pm
regulations imposed by the epa and other agents is print what that means is america is at the mercy of middle east mullahs and south american dictators. common sense tells us it is time to drill for american energy to create american jobs and american prosperity. it is time for us to have a western hemisphere energy strategy. my approach is prado -- pretty simple. make what americans buy, buy what americans may, and sell it to the world. that is what we need to be doing in this country. let me close by just sharing with you my take on conservatism in america. now, the popular media narrative -- is that this country has shifted away from
3:41 pm
conservative ideals, as evidenced by the last two presidential elections. that is what they say. that might be true if republicans have nominated conservative candidates in 2008 and 2012. that might be true. but now we are told our party must shift and appeal to the growing hispanic demographic. let me say something about what appeals to hispanics in states like texas. it is the free enterprise agenda that allows small businesses to prosper, free of government interference. it is the policies that value the family unit as the best and closest form of government. it is the belief in life, in the fe in vdot. no one knew risks lives and limbs to reach our shores comes hoping for a government handout.
3:42 pm
they want opportunity, freedom, and they want and other way to provide for their families and that is true whether they are first-generation americans or like hispanics in texas, families living here a long time before they crockett and james dewey and sam houston made their way south with my friends, this is what we as conservatives stand for. we are not the people of equal outcomes, of quotas, of raised- based appeals or a nanny state. we're the people who say everyone deserves a shot, but success is only the product of hard work and innovation. were the ideology that is blind of color and solely grounded in a merit system. we are compassionate without being cynical. government can be a tool to self-improvement, and self- empowerment. not self-entrapment.
3:43 pm
these ideals are as old as america, and they will live on as the prevailing sentiment long after we are gone, because they are what make america unique. we will never bend to the social and economic agenda of western europe. yet it is an interesting place to vacation, but it is a sorry example of government. we will continue to pursue a uniquely american vision seed in liberty, personal responsibility, and individual ity. god bless you, and may god continue to bless this country. thank you.
3:44 pm
>> caller: caller >> to formally introduce arnett speaker, i would like to welcome back to the stage al cardenas. >> whoa, where are you folks going? i'm about to introduce you a great person. ladies and gentlemen, this next speaker embodies everything i talked about this morning in my opening comments. number one, what is the theme of this conference? next generation of conservatives. we are working -- looking for talented, young, a committed conservative leaders who can take this nation back to the america that we all want and came here to fight about. ladies and gentlemen, this great senator from the great state of
3:45 pm
south carolina is here to talk to us about how that movement works, the leadership that america needs, and his vision for getting america back to work and economic prosperity. help me applaud diversity in the best way the conservatives can, and that i -- that is by extending our hands of conservative principles to all america. the senator from the greece date of south carolina -- the senator from the great state of south carolina, -- >> you can continue to watch this conference at
3:46 pm
the federal -- to serve on investigative subcommittees of the committee on ethics during the 113th congress. mr. john c. carney of delaware, mr. gerald e. connelly of virginia, ms. janice hahn of california, mr. brian pittsburgh higgins of new york, mr. hakeem s. jeffries of new york, mr. ed perlmutter of colorado, ms. terri a. sewell of alabama, ms. dina tight us of nevada. signed with best regards, nancy pelosi, democratic leader. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 113 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. caller: house calendar number 8, house resolution 113 -- the
3:47 pm
clerk: house calendar number ght, house resolution 113, resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 803, to reform and strengthen the workforce investment system of the nation to put americans back to work and make the united states more competitive in the 21st century. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on education and the work force. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on education and the work force now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the
3:48 pm
five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-4. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the
3:49 pm
house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or ithout instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized for one hour. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. foxx: during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection.
3:50 pm
ms. foxx: house resolution 113 provides for structured rule providing for consideration of h.r. 803, the supporting knowledge and investing in lifelong skills act, also known the skills act. mr. speaker, the house will consider the skills act that re-authorizes the work force nvestment act, wia, of 1998. while this has received funding through the authorization process, w.i.a. expired in 2008. they have a unified work force development system and one-stop career-centered delivery system. reforming this is critical and occurring these economic difficult times where 20 million americans are struggling to find adequate work, we cannot afford to delay action any longer.
3:51 pm
delay is costly for those seeking to find work. today many un and underemployed americans are turning to work force education programs to develop the skills they need to be competitive for jobs. but instead of an easy to navigate responsive system, many have found the complex bureaucracy unresponsive to their needs and concerns. in january, 2011, the government accountability office, g.a.o., identified 47 separate and distinct work force development programs across nine different federal agencies that costs taxpayers approximately $18 billion annually. the g.a.o. report found that almost all of these programs were duplicative and overlapping and that only five of these programs had had any type of evaluation and that those evaluations had not been very effective ones. through the education and work
3:52 pm
force committee's oversight of the w.i.a. system, even more programs have been identified and the true number of federal work force development programs is greater than 50. we know this is a problem. we all agree this should change. president obama recognized the challenge of the current bratic system in his 2012 -- bureaucratic system in his 2012 state of the union address. let me quote the president directly. quote, i want to cut through the maze of confusing training programs so for now on people have one program, one place to go for all the information and help that they need, end quote. these are among the many reasons i introduced the skills act earlier this year. this legislation streamlines 35 duplicative federal work force development programs and creates a single work force investment fund to serve employers, workers and job seekers. the skills act has an employer-driven work force
3:53 pm
development system by ensuring that 2/3 of the state and local work force investment boards members are employers and repeals 19 federally mandated board positions. this legislation expands decisionmaking at state and local levels so that these individuals can make the best decisions to meet the needs of their communities. the bill also addresses the administrative bloat in washington by requiring the office of management and budget to identify and reduce the number of federal staff working on employment work force development programs that will be consolidated under this bill. the skills act holds these programs accountable for taxpayer dollars spent by requiring annual performance evaluations and establishing common performance metrics. the bill also allows states to determine eligible training providers, simplifying the bureaucratic process that has forced many community colleges and other providers out of the
3:54 pm
system and gives local boards the flexibility to work directly with community colleges to educate large groups of participants. additionally, the skills act encourages these programs to focus on in-demand jobs in industries so that participants will be able to succeed in the workplace upon completion and ensures that funds are spent directly on services rather than administration of bureaucrats. this bill improves transparency by requiring states and local areas to report annually on administrative costs. each day we delay is another day employers are not hiring the workers they need, another day unemployed workers are not receiving the best technical education and another day taxpayer dollars are wasted on red tape and well-intentioned but broken programs. we have a responsibility to move this process forward. the time to act is now, mr. speaker, and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance
3:55 pm
of her time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i thank the gentlelady for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, the supporting knowledge and investing in lifelong kills or skills act. re-authorization of the federal job training legislation has had the support of democrats and republicans, members on both sides of the aisle know that passage of this bill is critical to our nation's recovery and future competitiveness. i served on the state board of education in colorado from 2000 to 2006, and i recall the prior authorization of the work force investment act that we're still operating under. it dates to 1998. it came up after five years in 2003. i remember being on the state board and in our state like many states jurisdiction goes between both department of labor and the state department of education.
3:56 pm
under state department of education we have the out-of-literacy components and adult components of work force investment and under the department of labor we have other areas for responsibility. we said hopefully congress will act. that was 2003, 2004. that congress didn't act. we said hopefully congress will act. 2005, 2006, well, you know, we still need a re-authorization. let's hope congress will act. then i ran for congress. i was mountain next congress, 2009, -- i was in the next congress, 2009, 2010, democratic majority, it didn't pass. 2011, 2012, republican majority. no w.i.a. re-authorization. here we are now in the 113th congress and unfortunately we have a bill that lacks bipartisan support. unfortunately the republicans have departed from the long history of bipartisanship and commonaries of agreement, some of which were talked about by
3:57 pm
dr. foxx in her remarks, streamlining programs, reducing the numbers of programs that have shown to be ineffective by the g.a.o., having a work force investment system that's more nimble, able to react to changes in the economy, to changes in the employment sector, to changes in the types of skills that people need to succeed in the 21st century work force. but unfortunately we have a bill today which falls short in that regard. even though this bill gives great authority to governors, i have word from my own home state's department of labor and employment opposition to this bill. we have statements from many other disability advocates, youth groups, civil rights groups opposed to this bill. workers with disabilities, disadvantaged youth, returning veterans, low-income adults, migrant workers, minorities, these are all underserved populations that work force investment system is designed to serve.
3:58 pm
yet, these are the very populations that stand to lose the most under the current bill. instead of encouraging collaboration between these programs and streamlining these programs and rewarding what works and stopping what doesn't work, this bill forces effective programs to compete with one another for state funding, putting an additional burden on state and local budgets in the process. nstead of prioritizing incentives for businesses, for colleges, for local governments and work force organizations to collaborate, this bill requires only employers be represented on work force investment boards leaving many other stakeholders on the sidelines. of course, meeting the needs of employers is the goal of the work force investment act, but when you look at the stakeholders that will deliver on that and match the people to the skills, you need to include
3:59 pm
businesses, colleges, local governments and others who work in partnership with needs assessment driven by the employment needs of the private sector to help determine the outputs that are important for work force training systems so our economy can continue to grow and succeed. mr. speaker, this bill hands a blank check to governors with a message that says go ahead and use federal tax dollars however you like. you can eliminate services for the underserved, and yet we, the american taxpayers, are continuing to pay for it. well, look, we are custodians of taxpayer trust here in this body. frequently this body doesn't do a very good job of that with the deficits we have, the lack of any comprehensive way of reining in federal spending. even with regard to the sequester, which while it makes progress on reining in federal spending, does so in a nondiscriminant way rather than a thoughtful approach that
4:00 pm
would be in the interest of this country. and here we are passing out dollar bills, throwing dollar bills to the states. here comes uncle sam ready to bail out governors. they're playing the walnut game, moving it over to this account, moving it to this account. this is essentially a slush fund for state governors as it's currently constructed at the expense of groups that traditionally have high unemployment, including veterans who so capeably served our country, -- capablely served our country, particularly during our two mothse recent wars, the iraq -- two most recent wars, the iraq war, which has wound down and hopefully the afghanistan war as well as veterans of prior conflicts, including the first gulf war and the vietnam conflict who continue to suffer from unemployment above average levels till this day. in addition, this bill affects
4:01 pm
funding set aside for partnerships, my home state has used the funding for state energy partnership, scholarships to train coloradans, even leading to the creation of a new company this fund aloud colorado to form 10 strategy sector partnership which is leveraged more than three quarters of a million in private and public financing to train over 1,200 colorado job seekers in high-demand occupations this vital funding would be slashed from 15% to 5%. i would add that under the democratic substitute which we're grate thfl rule allows for, we -- the amount set aside would be restored at the full 15%. in addition this bill would freeze authorize funding bills over the next seven years. this on top of the fact that funding has been cut in half since 2001. at the very time when the
4:02 pm
changing neefeds global economy need to match sod americans can keep up with the skills they need to compete in the 21st century economy. and while making a cut there could save a few dollars now, we fail to invest in the future of bringing americans along to ensure that they have good jobs that our nation depends on, this would have profund negative impact on our budget and economy over time. there's many ideas that a number of us have had to make this bill better. many of them are included in the democratic substitute, which is allowed under this rule and will be debated with extended debate time and discussed. many of us would have preferred an open rule. we proposed an open rule yesterday in the rules committee . i had an open -- had an open rule been offered i would have loved to bring forth a number of amendments, including one that is a bill i co-sponsored with
4:03 pm
rosa delauro that would make it easier for women to get training in fields they are underrepresented in. there are many fields, while women have meat great progress across the economy where women only have a 2% or 3% or 4% presence, that are high-paying job with need to match women with skills so they can fulfill those opportunities. i would like to see if there had been an open process on the floor of the house of representatives a requirement that state and local work force organizations give time and effort on promoting to train people to start their own companies through entrepreneurship and innovation, in addition to increasing act stose entrepreneurship train, we can focus on reducing the skills gap in computer science by providing education and training for the jobs of their future. democrats have introduced their own work forest re-authorization bill, the work forest investment act of 2013 which would
4:04 pm
streamline programs, main stain strong -- maintain strong protections for veterans and other vulnerable populations and create stronger accountability for employment outcomes. while expanding the role community colleges play in job training. i'm pleased this rule makes the democratic substitute in order. i wish it was an open rule that allowed for a full discussion for the many discussions -- ideas to come from the full body of membership. it will take both sides working together on this will with dr. foxx's effort, ranking member miller's effort, chairman kline's effort, ranking member hinojosa's effort, to create an authorization that will stand the test of time, replacing the 1998 law we all continue to operate under in a world that's changed significantly since then. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from north
4:05 pm
carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the comments of my colleague from colorado. he's on the education committee and i certainly wish that he and his colleagues had stayed in the education committee markup of this bill and offered the many ideas he said that they had to make it better but unfortunately they worked -- they walked out and did not take the opportunity to offer the amendments in the committee. i would now like to recognize my distinguished colleague from florida for three minutes. mr. yoho: i rise to support this bill. this bill will allow people to
4:06 pm
find gainful employment in the marketplace, which is what america is in dire need of right now, jobs. by helping people acquire the skills needed to find pliment, we -- employment, we give them the ability to help themselves and the ability to change their lifestyle as they pursue their mesh dream. the skills act would help the economy in several ways. one, by creating a more qualified work force to fill the needs of today's industries, thus it will bring more certainty to the marketplace, flfer employers, knowing there's a more readily available trained work force will be more likely to expand their business. another way that will create higher paying jobs, a third way is it reduces the numb of administrative agencies that oversee and run these programs by more than half, thereby causing government to be more streamlined, operate more efficiently and save the taxpayers money. the end result, we help people get back to work sooner and by
4:07 pm
doing so we make a stronger america. so many of our policies of the past, although well intentioned, have held people back and kept them out of the work force by not promoting the learning or advanced job skills needed in today's work environment. i believe we all would prefer to see people independent and self-sufficient versus dependent upon government. america is known as a general -- america is known as a generous cuventry, and let's help to keep her that way. but america is also known as the and of opportunity for those that choose to seize that opportunity. this skills act will help people awire the skills and if they desire to take advantage of the opportunity, to succeed in america. again, everyone wins and america is stronger. for these reasons, we should move forward with this legislation and i urge my colleague, both republicans and democrats, to vote in favor of
4:08 pm
the rule. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield any remaining time back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my honor to yield four minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, a colleague on the rules committee, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. mcgovern: thank you very much. mr. speaker, the ongoing problem with this republican majority is their insistence on partisan political ploys at the expense of sound policy. it's their way or the highway and this is a good example this bill should be a bipartisan bill and should have brought both sides together for the common goal of putting people back to work. but the bill we're considering today doesn't in any way, shape, or form reflect bipartisanship. instead of bringing a bill to the floor to help our economy prosper and grow jobs, instead of bringing a bill to the floor where there's bipartisanship, this majority has given us a bill that will gut job training programs. this is not a good bill. in fact, it does real harm to
4:09 pm
job training programs that will help put americans back to work. and aisle particularly alarmed by the bill's egregious cuts to the snap education and training program. the skills act would destroy the snap education and training program as we know it. it would kill a program that provides low income individuals with the training that they need to get jobs, jobs that pay enough to get them off of public assistance. here's the deal. the snap education and training program works. it actually works. the author of this bill, my colleague on the rules committee, dr. foxx, does not take a meat ax to this program but instead cleverly reworks it in a way so while it will exist in name it will not be able to carry out its mission. rather than going directly at the program and redurings zeroing out the program fund, the bill instead eliminates the role of the snap agency in determining what kinds of services are provided to snap participants. under the skills act, the board
4:10 pm
is authorized to serb, quote, eligible snap participants, end quote. the way this would appear to work is the state snap agency would assign some group of participants to snap education and training programs but only to those programs provided through weir. a good number of states, including my state of massachusetts, have found these services to be inappropriate for snap resip yen yents. the fact is, childless unemployed adults can't participate in snap for more than three months out of every' three years unless they're enrolled in training programs. n this legislation, work force boards are not allowed to meet these needs. as a result if jobs are not available, some poor individuals who are willing to work could lose snap benefit, could lose their food benefits. according to the general
4:11 pm
accounting officemark snap participants are not ready for program services such as training services offered at the one stops because they lack basic skills such as reading and computer literacy that would allow them to user that services successfully, end quote. at best, low income individuals on snap or lacking job skills that will -- are lacking job skills that will help them get on public assistance will be denied access to job training programs. but at worst, low income individuals who rely on snap to put food on their table will see part or all of their benefit cut. yes, mr. speaker, just when you think it couldn't get worse for poor people in the country this new legislation could make hunger worse. mr. speaker, this is a bad bill that does nothing to help the american economy or the unemployed or the untrained in this country. we should be focusing on jobs, not partisan legislation. this is an area where we should be able to come together as my colleague mr. polis said.
4:12 pm
another attack on poor people, we should be working to end hunger now not pass bills that made hunger worse. i'll conclude as i began, by saying that this is one of those opportunities that i think the american people believe that we could come together, unfortunately, this has become a partisan ploy, another partisan press release this bill is going nowhere. i regret that very much because unemployed people need help. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i am used to hyperbole on this floor. i'm used to hyperbole from my colleague from massachusetts but i really think this one was a little over the top. this bill does not kill the employment program with snap and only 6.8% of the recipients of food stamps even participate in that program. so to say that this bill is
4:13 pm
going to create additional hunger in this country is really over the top, a little bit. the best way we can help people who are hungry in this country is to help them get a good-paying job. and that's what we need to be doing. with that, i yield two minutes to my colleague from ohio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> i'd like to thank the gentlewoman from north carolina for yielding as well as her sponsorship of this bill. job creation and getting americans back to work is the number one priority facing this country and in talking to people talking to ict, people who are unemployed, underemployed, they tell me they need skills to get back to work. we need work force development programs that work. we need to train people for jobs that are here today and jobs that are going to be here tomorrow. one step we can take is to reform our work force development program. mr. stivers: our system
4:14 pm
currently isn't flexible, it has too much red tape. we need to make sure it works for people who are looking for jobs and connects people who are looking for jobs with employers that have open positions. we need a nimble system that can respond to our changing economy and we have to streamline our current system. today we've at least 47 duplicative or ineffective programs. we need a simpler, more comprehensive system, a system that employers and job seekers can navigate and successfully complete. the skills act will address these issues and set up a work force development program that will train people looking for jobs to get them back to work. that's why i look forward to voting in favor of the skills act, i want to thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey a member of the committee on education and the work force, r. hall.
4:15 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hall: i rise in opposition to the bill and the under-- to he rule and the underlying bill. i watched when i came to congress as congress -- mr. holt: as they produced the work force investment act. i was impressed. this was the kind of thing congress should be doing. it was the kind of thing that made me look forward to the prospect of maybe going to congress someday. i remember david groder, then the dean of washington journal itself, wrote a column saying this is exactly the kind of thing that congress should be doing. and they were doing it in a bipartisan way. and here we are today, 15 years later, with an ideological, partisan dead end. now, let me make it clear.
4:16 pm
work force investment is what congress needs to do. the government plays an important role in training and fostering a strong and capable work force. the so-called skills act does not invest in the work force, rather it seeks to combine and reduce vital programs that workers need. as a member of the committee on education of the work force, i along with others sought to help to develop an update, efficient, fair program that would help eager workers get the right training and get the right jobs. we had some good ideas to contribute. some of them have been tested in my home state of new jersey. we had some strong evidence that some of the programs that representative foxx's version had canceled or sought to cancel should be improved and retained. we had good legislative language for the majority party to consider. and we were rebuffed. our efforts were in vein.
4:17 pm
american workers -- in vain. american workers are now caught in the middle of this partisan ideological effort. individuals with disabilities, the disadvantaged, high-risk youth, veterans cannot afford to be abandoned by the majority party's proposal. it was interesting that the author of this bill said, well, only 6.8% of the snap participants use the work force training. oh, so three million people we can forget about? is that the implication of that? no. i think the implication should be we should expand it to even ore. we need to work together to provide our nation's job seekers with the resources and the training they need to obtain and maintain quality employment. the underlying partisan,
4:18 pm
consolidated and then cut it bill will keep people out of work. not put them back to work. i urge the defeat of the rule so that we can have something more bipartisan and i urge defeat of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i am reminded of a line from the cantorberry tales, the gentleman doht protest too much -- doth protest too much. we were told that this is a partisan bill. my colleague was one of the members of the committee that walked out of the committee meeting when there was the opportunity for the democrats to offer amendments. they did not do it. however, some amendments were offered before the rules committee and we have all of the amendments that were submitted by the democrats and not
4:19 pm
withdrawn are going to be considered today. the democrat substitute amendment was made in order and i appreciate mr. polis acknowledging that. and we've given them extended debate time. so it's not exactly as though we are shutting them out of this process. with that, mr. speaker, i would like to yield three minutes to my distinguished colleague from north carolina, congresswoman ellmers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for three minutes. mrs. ellmers: thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you to my distinguished colleague from north carolina, whose passion and longstanding experience in this area have brought this great piece of legislation for us to be able to vote on today. and i would just like to rise and say that i am in support of the rule and the underlying bill to the skills act. you know, here in congress we speak frequently -- we frequently hear from our constituents back home that we need to work with the president on many issues. and this is a perfect example of
4:20 pm
a piece of legislation that we are working with president obama on. this skills act directly addresses what the president recently called a maze of confusing training programs. this is our chance to come together and create meaningful, commonsense reform that will help struggling americans pull themselves up out of unemployment and empower them to better provide for their families. it would also create a single work force investment fund. it basically streamlines numerous, ineffective, redundant programs and it allows for every american to better themselves. i can only think of who this bill actually helps. i can think of the single mother who is working every day and wants to help herself to better help her family and have the flexibility to go back to school, to a good community college, to our tech nal -- technycal schools. this bill kits -- technical
4:21 pm
schools. this bill cuts the red tape that our good community colleges and technical schools now face. and we can help them. there are so many people who need our help. this idea is not republican and it is not democrat. it is common sense. in fact, this bill is largely the same bill that came out of the education and work force committee last congress and most of the democratic provisions have been retained. i am also hearing from constituents back home, for instance, dr. larry keen, president of fateville technical community college, recently told my office, i am in favor of this skills act and the purposes for which it is created. anything that contributes to the simplification of a very complex system is of value. again, i rise today in support of this. i agree with dr. keen and i am here to say that i am calling on my colleagues to step away from this partisan attack and help us pass this bill. additionally i hope the senate will do the same.
4:22 pm
thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i have to take a moment to correct the gentlelady from north carolina, my colleague, dr. foxx, who quoted the lady doth protest too much, saying it was from cantorberry tales. it is actually from shakespeare's "ham let" and i'm sure the gentlelady upon further reflection will concur. i would reflect that this bill, like hamlet, is indeed a tragedy. mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for two minutes. without objection. mr. langevin: i thank the . ntleman for yielding mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, h.r. 803, the skills act. mr. speaker, this is the time to
4:23 pm
be investing in the work force development programs, not slashing them. i especially want to point out that unemployment in rhode island remains unacceptably high, yet the skills gap is an employment obstacle that we can actually overcome with the right resources. workers need proper training to succeed in a global economy. the work force investment act programs have helped to do just that. so it saddens me that the bill before us today cuts so many vital programs just when we need them the most. it freezes investments in job training, it cuts or consolidates 35 critical programs and limits access to services for youth, minorities, older workers, people with disabilities and veterans. the vulnerable populations that this law was designed to serve. now this bill could also imperil the efforts of organizations making positive strides also in my home state. a prime example of this, the genesis adult education center in providence which receives 20% of its total budget from w.i.a.
4:24 pm
resources, helps some of the most disadvantaged people in our state through job training, child care and support services. onto the skills act, the genesis center could face a reduction of funding and would be forced to serve fewer rhode islanders. now, the -- as the job core centers nationwide, enrollment of new students has been suspended and this bill does nothing to address this problem. for almost three months the job course center in rhode island has been unable to enroll new students in job training classes. we should be considering legislation that addresses this challenge and invests in job falls farnd this bill short on both counts. i urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and reject this bill so that we can come together in a bipartisan manner that properly addresses our work force issues. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr.
4:25 pm
speaker. i'd like to yield now two minutes to the distinguished ntleman from virginia, mr. hurt. mr. hurt: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and her leadership on this very, very important issue. as i travel across virginia's fifth district, it is clear that years of failed policies like the president's health care law, higher taxes and stimulus spending have impacted the people that i represent. main streets all across our rural district have seen our small businesses struggle. and families across our district have felt the pain as neighbors, friends and family members have lost their jobs and tried to find work. as our economy struggles, ensuring our unemployed and underemployed have access to the skills training they need to improve their careers is as important as ever. however, the federal government's work force training programs, while well intended, are cluttered with bureaucracy, waste and inefficiency. they're not helping those they were intended to help. americans will not benefit from these programs until we ensure that they are both efficient and
4:26 pm
effective. at a time when the national debt is skyrocketing, a 2011 study from the g.a.o. found that taxpayers are spending $18 billion on 47 duplicative job training programs across nine federal agencies. our top priority in the house of representatives over the last two years has been getting americans out of the unemployment lines and into good-paying jobs and today we are standing up to make those critical reforms. by adopting the skills act, congress will put words into action and take a critical step toward getting our communities back to work. this legislation will eliminate red tape that prevents workers from accessing job training and it will ensure that support is tailored -- tailored to the specific needs of individual workers. a strong work force is critical to the future of this great nation. i remain committed to looking for ways to get virginia's fifth district back to work. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the underlying legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california,
4:27 pm
mrs. capps. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capps: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague from colorado for yielding. i rise today in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill. at a time when more and more people are starting their own businesses, we should be doing everything we can to encourage entrepreneurship. unfortunately current rules make it difficult for work force w.i.b.'s tooards or provide entrepreneurial training services or to count the successes of those programs in their -- and their outcome measures. the very thing we ought to be doing through these work force investment boards. as a result, very few w.i.b.'s even offer these programs. depriving aspiring entrepreneurs of valuable resources to help them thrive. that's why in the last congress i introduced legislation to fix the guidelines for self-employment training. our goal would make it easier for the work force investment board to offer these programs in
4:28 pm
the local community, to expand access to training for aspiring entrepreneurs. i would like to thank mr. tierney, mr. hinojosa, mr. miller for including my legislation in their amendment that will be considered tomorrow. job training and re-employment issues always have been and always should be bipartisan. so it's very sad that this rule and the underlying bill have come to the floor under a strictly partisan process. and that they will actually harm the very program that they're designed to support. so i urge my colleagues to vote no and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i would now like to yield three minutes to the distinguished woman from indiana and a member of the education and work force committee, mrs. brooks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. mr. brooks: i'd first like to thank -- mrs. brooks: i'd first like to thank the leadership of congresswoman fox. i stand here today not just as a
4:29 pm
member of congress but as a former community college administrator. as a senior vice president and general counsel for indiana's largest community college, public college system, i led statewide work force education and training efforts aimed at putting thousands of hoosiers back to work. i also served on indiana's state work force board which administers the funds set forth in the skills act. my experience in the work force development arena taught me a very important lesson. that americans of all ages and backgrounds have the ability to be anything they want to be but they need a flexible support system that prioritizes people and not bureaucracy. this is bureaucracy. and this is what our current system looks like. that's why congress must pass the skills act. we have a chance to empower millions of individuals to lead a more fulfilling life by finding meaningful work and we must take that chance now. this is the time to choose people over paperwork and
4:30 pm
workers over waste. my own home district is home to several global manufacturing and life science leaders and i recently sat down with employees from a company headquartered in scienceville, indiana, and one by one employees told me we have to make better, smarter investment decisions in work force development and education for our nation to succeed and for our companies to succeed. how can we be a nation that spends over $18 billion a year on job training programs, over 47 job training programs, yet have almost 3.6 million jobs going unfilled? so we have jobs that are unfilled because we have a system that doesn't work. this isn't good enough for morning. we can do better. and the skills act can take us on that path. the skills act can and will put people back to work. it is leaner, it provides a road map for kess that can fuel a
4:31 pm
21st century work force. it removes roadblocks that prevents workers from receiving in demand training and it gives employers more flex to believe the provide funding for in demand programs. it ensures that more of every dollar we spend goes to training people, rather than to the bureaucracy administering the 47 different programs today. house republicans are ready to show we can put skilled american workers over government bureaucracy by passing the skills act. i support passage of this rule and the underlying bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i would like to inquire of the screalt from north carolina if she has remaining speakers. ms. foxx spks we do have addition -- ms. foxx: we do have additional speakers. mr. polis: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: i yield three minutes
4:32 pm
o the gentleman, mr. metser. mr. messer: i rise today in support of the rule to h.r. 803, the skills act this critically important legislation introduced by dr. foxx will reform and strengthen our nation's work force investment system. back where i come from, in indiana's sixth congressional district, the number one issue is jobs. though there are 12 million americans looking for work, most folks would be surprised to know that 3.6 million jobs are unfilled simply because prospective employers -- prospective employees lack the necessary knowledge and training needed for that job. the skills act works to address this problem. folks in my district are tired of the failed obama economy.
4:33 pm
too many times, parents have had to come home and tell their children that they've lost their job and they don't know how they're going to pay their bills or send them to college or get their car fixed. too many times in recent years, young people have been unable to find a job or at least find a good-paying job, that lets them start their journey of life. unfortunately, our nation's job training system has been failing these hardworking taxpayers. the more than 50 separate programs offered under the current system cost taxpayers $18 billion annually. most of these programs are duplicative and not as effective as they should be. this has led to taxpayer dollars being wasted, employers being unable to hire trained workers and workers not getting the skills they need to succeed. we must do better. the skills act will eliminate and streamline 35 inective and
4:34 pm
redundant programs to ensure workers get the skills they need to fill available jobs. the skills act will eliminate waste and will empower leaders and job creators to ensure workers receive training for jobs in high demand this bill will guarantee job creators a stronger role in work force development decisions and ensure taxpayer dollars aren't wasted on broken bureaucracies. most importantly, these changes will help workers find good-paying jobs. mr. speaker, the skills act strengthens our work investment system, provides smart stewardship of taxpayer dollars and gives us the opportunity to do better right now. i urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back to the gentlelady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you. i'd like to inquire of the
4:35 pm
gentlelady of the -- of north carolina if she has further speakers. ms. foxx: yes, we do. mr. polis: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman are serves. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. imy colleagues across the aisle have continued to malign what they call a political process. regular order, mr. speaker is not political process. the skill act has been -- the skills act has been posted online for near lay month, the higher education work force training subcommittee held a legislative hearing on this bill on february 26, and a full committee markup last thursday. unfortunately, the democrats opposed the open, transparent process of markup and instead requested that members of the committee hold closed door negotiations. during the markup, the democrats ultimately walked out and refused even that offer
4:36 pm
amendments. this is not what the american people asked for in the 2012 election. they asked us to work together in a transparent, bipartisan way to address our country's challenges and we gave our colleagues that opportunity. they refused it. last year, the committee accepted four democrat amendments during consideration of the work forest investment improvement act, the predecessor of the skills act. these four amendments are retained in the base text of the skills act. hardly a partisan approach. my republican colleagues and i on the education committee have shown we're willing and ready to work with our democrat colleagues. it's unfortunate that they instead chose a partisan walkout. in contrast, under democrat control in the 11th and 111th congresses, the house considered 66 bills that were referred to
4:37 pm
the education and work force committee but received no committee consideration before being brought to the house floor. the skills act has gone through an open and transparent process and it is unfortunate that democrats have been unwilling to participate in regular committee process. additionally, the rule before us today provides consideration of six amendments, including all amendments submitted to the rules committee by democrats that were not withdrawn before the rules committee hearing and as i stated before, the democrat substitute amendment was made -- was made in order with extended debate time. this exceedingly fair rule is a culmination of a transparent, regular order which allow miscolleagues across the aisle multiple opportunities to argue for their proapproach. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: again i'd like to inquire of the gentlelady if she
4:38 pm
has remaining speakers. ms. foxx: it appears now we do have the -- do not have additional speakers. if the gentleman from colorado is prepared to close, i will also be prepared. mr. polis: i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. particularly at a time of economic stagnation, recovery from a recession, stills are a more important piece than tover ensure that americans can compete in the 21st -- 1st century work force. we all know that many of the jobs that helped americans earn a solid place in the middle class of the 20th century are not necessarily the same jobs that will allow americans to live ab-- an up wardly mobile middle class lifestyle in the 21st century. 24rst now growth sector, new opportunities and new challenges
4:39 pm
as well. one of the keys to both our prosperity as a nation as well as the prosperity and growth of the middle class is to make sure that americans have the skills they need to compete in the 21st century economy. when we match those skills to the people who need to have them to support their families, we're talking about all american family. we're talking about veteran, we're talking about the disabled. we're talking about those who don't have a high school diploma. we're talking about immigrants. we need to make sure that each of these groups that have traditionally have had and do have a higher unemployment rate than americans as a whole can receive the type of training, education, and skills they need to support their families and give back to the rest of us. a hand up, rather than a handout.
4:40 pm
that's what work force investment is all about. both democrats and republicans agree, it's long overdue for us to update and strengthen the work force investment act. it was written in 1998. the world was different in 1998. i don't think any of us saw the degree with which the economy , since 1998, we've had many new jobs, the internet has grown to a mainstream phenomena. we've had a banking crisis, we've had two wars. we've had -- we're on our third president since 1998. things have changed a lot. things have changed a lot. i'm amazed, mr. speaker, when i meet people now that were born in the 1990's and they're in the work force. it's incredible to think about. yet we're still operating under
4:41 pm
a thraw that doesn't reflect the changing needs of the american work force. it is time for democrats and republicans to work together, to work together to re-authorize the work force investment act. the president has stated that he doesn't support this bill. he wouldn't sign this bill. we need to work together, democrats and republicans, to come up with a framework that works. and yes, we all know that a committee markup process is part of that process but so too is establishing the base bill, a process from which democrats were excluded. as former education and work force committee chairman buck mckeon said, we'd like to see us work in the same mode where we really try to work together, he said. he said, i don't think it is the republican bill or the democratic bill, but it should be all of our bill. end quote. unfortunately, with regard to where this bill is today,
4:42 pm
republicans did not choose to thrard wise advice of the former chairman in how this bill was formed and brought to the floor. now again, while neither house democrats or committee democrats or the president support the underlying bill, i'm hopeful that republican leadership's desire to move this bill to the floor indicates the start of a process to finally re-authorize the work force investment act. it's not an issue of left or right, it's an issue of updating the work force investment act to reflect the changing needs of our economy and the changing set of skills that america needs -- americans need to support themselves. i am hopeful that with the continued work of dr. foxx and chairman kline and ranking member miller and ranking member hinojosa and other esteemed members of this body that republicans and democrats will work together, both making
4:43 pm
concessions, to improve the nation's work force investment system and improve the route to the middle class for working families across our country. work force investment and training to address the skills gap are critical to this economy as a whole. we have a long way to go to strengthen, and, yes, streamline our work force training and investment programs. there are some good ideas with regard to streamlining work force investment that are contained in this bill that can form a basis for bipartisan support. but we still have a long way to go. we need to work across the aisle to invest in our future, to take care of fellow citizens and make sure they have the ability to support themselves. i look forward to continuing this process with members on both sides of the aisle, with members of the committee, and members of the house at large. yet, the process and bill before us currently is flawed.
4:44 pm
and therefore, i urge a no vote on this rule and the underlying bill. i reserve the balance -- i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. the world has changed greatly since 1998 when this legislation was first authorized and even since 2003 when this legislation was last re-authorized. i'm very concerned that my colleague has said that this legislation is flawed and that we did not participate or provide a bipartisan process. this is an example of republicans blame -- of democrats blaming republicans for what they themselves do. we gave our colleagues every opportunity to come help fix the flaws in this legislation through regular order. they chose not to do it.
4:45 pm
another -- the president said in his 2012 state of the union address, quote, it is time to turn our employment system into a re-employment system that puts people to work. end quote. with 12 million americans looking for work the skills act makes commonsense reforms to a broken work force development system through -- to remove inefficiencies and ensure that individuals are able to get the education and skills they need to find a job. now the president is saying he will veto this legislation. and yet it does exactly what he asked us to do. this is another example of the president saying one thing and doing another. the skills act takes a crucial step forward in the fight to eliminate red tape and create a more effective system to better serve and prepare americans to compete in the 21st century work force.
4:46 pm
i hope the legislation will see swift approval in the house and senate and the skills act will be on the president's tesk in the coming weeks to see if he indeed will veto the bill that he asked for. mr. speaker, the skills act will build a more dynamic and responsive work force development system giving priority to well-paying, in-demand industries, expand opportunities at community colleges, and most importantly, treat all jobs -- all job seekers as individuals. these changes are critical at a time when the bureau of labor statistics estimates that more than 3.6 million open jobs are going unfilled because there aren't enough skilled candidates. let's reform these programs to serve employers and individuals in an effective and efficient manner. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and the underlying bill, i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. .
4:47 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the question is on offereding -- ordering the question on the previous resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: yeas and nays are requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adoption of the resolution if ordered and approval of the journal if ordered. again, this is a 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
4:48 pm
4:49 pm
4:50 pm
4:51 pm
4:52 pm
4:53 pm
4:54 pm
4:55 pm
4:56 pm
4:57 pm
4:58 pm
4:59 pm

Public Affairs
CSPAN March 14, 2013 1:00pm-5:00pm EDT

News News/Business.

TOPIC FREQUENCY America 56, Us 45, Washington 26, North Carolina 14, China 13, Obama 11, United States 10, Afghanistan 9, Iran 9, U.s. 8, Islam 7, Paul 6, Tucker 6, Ms. Foxx 6, California 5, Vermont 5, Clinton 5, Indiana 5, Dr. Foxx 5, Carolina 4
Network CSPAN
Duration 04:00:01
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 17 (141 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 3/14/2013